Leave the gun.
here we currently have 40 attendees we can begin as you wish thank you good morning my
name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EVA hearings. With me is Carol
Tenere, our vice chair. Present, Mr. Chairman. Ismail Shahid, our board secretary. Present,
Mr. Chairman. Thomas Holliman, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. And James Snell, our board
member. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also here is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett, and our attorney,
Hillary Emerson. Before we start, here's our virtual format. Be advised, proceedings are
being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. A video will be
available by contacting tonyasunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographers,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand
and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, please note the question-answer box is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our executive director.
Let's start with continuances for this morning's hearings.
Number five.
Let me go back here.
Number five, MI 2021-003-217-225 South 52nd Street.
Number eight, MI 2021-005-235-3232 Henry Avenue.
And number 14, MI 2021-005-236-776 Martin Street.
All three of these cases are continued.
Are there any comments in the virtual audience relative to these three cases?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
For number five, the request for continuance was attorney moving party.
Thank you.
Chair, we have Mr. James Hellings with his hand up.
Mr. Hellings, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, good afternoon, all.
I mean, good morning, all.
James Hellings, J-A-M-E-S-H-E-L-L-I-N-G-S.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What are these three cases, sir?
776 South Martin Street.
Your comments relative to it?
Go ahead.
We are the owners of the property.
We do have a baby due, so I was hoping if...
Oh, no, no, no, no.
I didn't know if we could have it until like August time frame or that.
What we'll do is contact our office.
We're aware of that.
We're continuing this and we understand your situation.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it very much.
Anyone else?
Chair, we have someone with the phone number ending at 6917.
Caller, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Caller, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Can you hear me, Karen?
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court report?
Yes, my name is Joseph Bergen, B-E-R-G-A-N.
I'm the president of a civic association,
a neighborhood civic association, and we requested...
Wait one minute.
Wait one minute.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
I do. What case? It's the case regarding 5312-18 Ridge Avenue.
And that was continued. I had a mutual agreement.
That's on the two o'clock list, Mr. Chair. This is Hillary. Okay, that's right, the other one.
Could you call back in at two o'clock, please, sir? My apologies. That's fine. That's fine.
thank you any other comments about chair we have someone by the name of lawrence callie
mr callie please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good good morning mr chairman larry callie c-a-l-l-i from callie law i'm an attorney on
behalf of the applicant at three two three two henry avenue um wait a minute do you swear
for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir, I do. And
our request is for continuance today, Mr. Chairman. My architect is unavailable. She's
in flight, and we have yet to discuss with the RCOR project. It's a very simple proposal
for a sign. We've already continued that, sir. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we'll
reach out to the office for the new date. Is that right? Yes. Very good. Thank you, folks. Have a
wonderful day. Case number one, MI-2021-005225, Bart Levy's the attorney. Mr. Levy?
There, I don't see Mr. Levy's hand up. MI-2021-005225, 120 North 53rd Street. The case
has continued. The exhibits came in too late to process. Any other requests for continuing with
this? Chair, I have Mr. Stevenson Dunn with his hand up. Mr. Dunn, please unmute yourself and wait
for the chair. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me now? I can. Could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter? I'm Bart Levy. You just addressed me. Mr. Levy, your case has
continued thank you mr chairman all right any other requests for continuances
um mr chair is that going to be a must be heard on mr levy we could do that yep must be heard
thank you any other continuances i see no hands at this time chair any withdrawals
there are no hands up at this time chair we're going to go to the add-on case
mi 2021 005095 this is a request for reconsideration of 2412 north 13th street i vote no
carolton airy my vote is no thomas hallowen my vote is no to reconsideration
James Snell my vote is no to reconsideration
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is no to reconsideration
We're going to go to the regular list and I'm going to start with number 11
MI 2021 005232 4801 Jefferson Street
Lynn Nichols is the attorney
letter of support from Parkside Association of Philadelphia RCO. Chair, Ms. Nichols is coming
back in as a panelist now. Thank you. Morning, Ms. Nichols. Could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter? Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Lynn Nichols, L-Y-N-N, last name N-I-C-H-O-L-S.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and state the relationship they have with the property?
Our client present today on behalf of the owner rep is Sean Dwyer, and he is the owner rep for Super Enterprises, LLC.
Right. Our vice chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Ms. Nichols. Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we have and yes.
Okay, thank you. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen?
yes thank you members of the board miss mr chair madam vice chair and members of the board this
application is for an addition with a roof deck above a previously approved detached structure
in our project presentation we have the zoning use application the application for appeal the
project information form a deed to the property showing the owner of super enterprises llc
Our tax certification. Here are some photos of the property showing a view looking to the right
of the entrance of 4801 Jefferson. This is a photograph of a view looking to the left of
the entrance of 4801 Jefferson. We have a view looking across from 4801 Jefferson.
Here is a view facing the front of 4801 Jefferson.
a view of 4801 jefferson from the 1700 block of north 49th street
this is a view of the rooftop another view of the rooftop
an additional view of the rooftop a view looking at 4801 jefferson from the 4800 block of jefferson
these are the impacted neighbors proof of mailing of the impacted neighbors
Here is the zoning notice that was posted for this hearing today.
This is the notice of refusal.
These are the plans that were submitted.
This is showing the rooftop addition as drawn on the plans.
And finally, this is the RCO summary and support.
The roof deck was part of an original plan that was scaled back due to budget restrictions.
With the influx of capital, they were able to put it back into the project and amend
the plans.
We had to go back to the RCO again for a second approval, which we were able to obtain, and members of the board, we come back to you to get approval for the roof deck so that we can obtain the Certificate of Occupancy.
At this time, I would like to call our witness, Sean Dwyer.
Mr. Dwyer, please unmute yourself and please wait for the share.
Mr. Dwyer, state your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Sean, S-E-A-N, Dwyer, D-W-Y-E-R.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dwyer, do you agree with and adopt my presentation and testimony given here today
for the property located at 4801 Jefferson?
And are you here as the owner rep on behalf of Super Enterprises, LLC?
Thank you.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Chair, do you have any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair Bergman.
David Fecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear, firm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the industrial
zoning at this location.
While there is no hardship that would require a roof deck to be built to enable viable use
of this warehouse, a roof deck also would not impact the use of adjacent properties.
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the use variance
thank you before we vote please put on the record Mr. Ismail Shahid our board secretary has recused
himself from this vote MI 2021-005-232-4801 Jefferson Street I vote yes
Carol Tenere my vote is yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes James Snell my vote is yes
Thank you.
thank you
thank you Mr. Chairman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Case number two, MI 2021-005-228-1538 West Tioga Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Letter of support from Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team RCO.
good morning mr clinton could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
sure henry clinton c-l-i-n-t-o-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do first um could you identify your client and the relationship to
the property? Sure. My client is Archbishop Blount, B-L-O-U-N-T, and he is on the call
by telephone. Thank you. Our Vice Chair, Carl Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all the above
thank you you may proceed and share your screen
is that visible it is yes uh good morning mr chairman members of the board uh i'm here on
behalf of the owner qm lm llc the principal of which is archbishop blunt b-l-o-u-n-t who
is on the call with me. This matter concerns a property 1538 West Tioga. It's basically a three
story shell, as I'll show you throughout the presentation. And we're asking that the use
be returned to what it once was, which is a three family dwelling. This is my table of contents
containing exhibits AA through A11, all of which I asked to be admitted.
appearance statement. This is the refusal, the key document, indicating that this is an RSA 5 zone,
and even though once was used as a three-family dwelling, it's been vacant for a number of years,
and therefore the zoning revert to what it is in the zoning district, which is RSA 5,
which is the reason we're before the board to basically ask that the RSA 5 zoning district
we get some relief from that so that we can return to the use as a three-family dwelling.
We do have an RCO letter of support from Nice Town Tioga Improvement Team. We did meet with
them and presented the same presentation basically that I'm presenting to the board today. This is a
photograph of the property to the left. Excuse me. Yes, to the left, to the right. This was also
a dilapidated property at one time and you'll see from my current photographs it has since
been renovated and is a three-family dwelling. So we're asking that the property on the left
1538 also be permitted to be used as the same usage as the property next door i.e. a three-family
dwelling. This is an aerial photograph just giving you a perspective. This is looking south
Sydenham Street to your left and Tioga Street dead center.
This is the current photograph of the property.
You can see where the zoning notices are posted on the front of the property
and note the property next door is now completely renovated
and the subject property is in dire need of renovation.
Same photograph showing houses side by side.
And this is a close-up view.
The zoning records do indicate 1540 is a triplex.
You can see three mailboxes on the front entryway.
And they both share almost a common set of steps.
Our plans are basically to have two two-bedroom units and one third-bedroom unit.
The plan does show an addition on the rear third floor.
we're not asking for that today from the board we're just asking that the use be changed so
basically the plans will be as they appear save for this third floor addition which will not be
included within the project this is the floor plan basement will have the mechanicals
and steps leading to the exterior there'll be one apartment on the first floor
one apartment on the second floor and then it will be just one apartment
And then there will be just one apartment on the third floor in the front.
on the third floor in the front again the
Again, the rear addition is not part of this application.
These are the elevations.
And we do not have a tax certification per se, but we were able to pay the real estate taxes.
So all the real estate taxes are paid up to date.
so in conclusion this is a long vacant property which was once used as a three-family property
we're asking that the usage be reverted back to what it was a three-family dwelling which is
consistent with the house next door as well as consistent with with the prior use I just wanted
to show the board briefly some of the zoning records indicating from 1986 and 1985 it was
his three-family dwelling. And then back in 1949, it was actually somewhat of a rooming house. It
had one housekeeping unit and five non-housekeeping units. This is the record from 86, indicating
three-family dwelling. This is the record from 84, indicating three-family dwelling.
and this is the record we're able to find from 1849, again indicating one housekeeping unit
and five non-housekeeping units. So in conclusion, I'd ask the board if they have any questions
and just a quick summary. We're not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood with
this application. It's consistent with the adjacent property as well as with other multifamily units
in the neighborhood. We're not detrimental to the public welfare. We're not going to affect
the development of any adjacent property, and it will not impede any light or air to
any adjacent property in the neighborhood. And with that, I rest and will entertain any
questions from the board or from the community. Mr. Clinton, could you have your client adopt
your testimony? Sure. Archmishop Blount, can you unmute yourself from your telephone?
He will have to raise his virtual hand, please.
Archbishop, can you raise your hand?
Okay, we have a calling user with the phone number ending in 6262.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry.
Good morning. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Chairperson and committee. My name is Eugene Blunt, E-U-G-E-N-E, last name Blunt, B as in boy, L-O-U-N-T, as in time.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Thank you. Proceed, counsel.
Archbishop Blunt, were you on the call when I just presented the project at 1538 West Tioga?
yes sir and did you hear my testimony yes sir and if you had the opportunity to testify would
you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct yes sir i will thank you very much
questions from the board yes mr chairman uh council did you submit a revised uh plan
no Mr. Heilman because we are not changing the dimensions of the property we're just asking for
use so we didn't make any alterations to to the property that weren't reviewed by the board
thank you
questions from the virtual audience
chair we have Charles Richardson Mr. Richardson you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good morning mr richardson state your name and spell for the court reporter please
good morning mr chair charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n office of councilwoman
cindy bass room 312 city hall do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed councilwoman has no objection to granting this variance
Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The City's zoning archive shows that this property has a long-standing documented history as a triplex.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the use of variants for three dwelling units.
the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use variants for three dwelling units
thank you MI 2021-005-228-1538 West Tioga Street I vote yes
Carol Tenere my vote is yes Thomas Holliman my vote is yes
okay we have three votes thank you thank you mr chairman and members of the board have a great
day right mi 2020 003 118 2109 gillingham street burn out of stage is the attorney
letter of opposition from the rco letter of opposition from the council person
Chair, Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning.
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Yes, it's Vern Anastasio.
It's V-E-R-N-A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, sir.
I represent the owner of the property, Mr. Joe Berkhauser.
Thank you.
John Berkhauser.
Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Got it.
Hi, Mr. Anastasio.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of that, Vice Chair. Correction on the stipulating to the referrals accuracy. Yes, the corpus of the referral is in fact accurate. The only mistake made by the examiner was instead of hitting the referral box, they hit the refusal box at the top.
But the corpus of the actual document is very explicit that this is a special exception approval only.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen, please.
Thank you. Thank you very much. This is the referral.
The application is for personal vehicle repair and maintenance and storage of parts to be in an existing structure.
As you know, a special exception assumes that Mr. Joseph Burkhauer's business is compliant with the code unless there is evidence that our use could somehow be detrimental and negatively impacting the community more than a like-situated use of a similar situation.
So I wanna be able to show you the plans that were drawn.
It's just the basic offices with a garage.
The lot size is 3,200 square feet
and the coverage is 100%.
We have photos of the property in question.
where all the work is done inside the property
this was a welding facility for 40 years operated by my client
it is on a block that is completely surrounded by automotive businesses of all sorts shapes and
sizes zero percent residential uh auto bodies on either side we've got auto repair auto painting
uh so it's the whole block is completely encircled with all sorts of uh automotive uses
and then there's parking over here and that's there's a bar and restaurant on the corner
so there's there's lots of commercial and or light uh industrial
i'm going to show you the letter that was mailed out to all impacted neighbors 43 individual people
all impacted neighbors, 43 individual pieces of mail, and we have a tax cert as well.
I want to come back to this so we understand where we are in context. Now, the appellant
is the owner of 2109 Gillingham. For approximately 40 years, Mr. Chairman, the property was used as
a welding shop, which is a buy-write use under the zoning code by my client. In late 2020,
my client leased the property out to Andre McIntyre for use as vehicle repair and maintenance,
believing because of all other adjacent uses that this was compatible with the code and as a matter
of right. But shortly thereafter, the Department of LNI did inform them that a special exception
certificate was in fact required. On Thursday the 14th of 2022, my client met with the
Frankfurt Neighbor Advisory Committee, which is the registered RCO. My client presented its case
for special exception, including how his business operations would not have any greater negative
impact on the adjacent community that would normally be expected from the proposed use.
I'll briefly go over them. Due to only scheduled vehicle drop-off and pickup and on-site internal
parking, business operations would not cause congestion in the streets or overburden the
transportation system. Due to the compact nature of the shop and its use as a self-contained
commercial operation, it would not overcrowd the land by causing any density issues. Due to the
compact nature of the shop and its use as a self-contained commercial operation with no
residential neighbors on its block face and height well below what would be as a matter of right,
It would not impair adequate supply or air due to the compact nature of the shop and its use as a self-contained commercial operation.
At the center of commercial use block, it would not burden water, sewer, school, park, or other public facilities.
It would not impair or permanently injure the use of adjacent conforming properties.
and it would not pose a public health or safety by fire threats or other means since such threats
would be obviated by the permitting licensing and inspection process and since the proposed
use required a special exceptions it is a presumed legal use akin to a conditional use
in other municipalities and therefore not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for
the city of Philadelphia, and that through hours of operation, schedule delivering, and general
upkeep, along with being sited on a commercial block with no residential uses on the block face,
there would be no general detrimental impacts on the neighborhood. Now, at the RCO meeting,
participants did raise concerns about abandoned cars being a long-standing problem
up and down the street on Gillingham and even on the Cross Street.
My client shared with all the participants that when he operated the welding shop for the last
40 years, he too often had to call L&I regarding abandoned cars blocking his business and his
driveway and advised that the responsible party was an unrelated operation further down the block.
my client and his tenant further stated that all cars associated with the instant use
shall be delivered according to only scheduled times and housed inside the facility. Appellant
further stated that the type of vehicles serviced at the property are working vehicles, like you and
I would take our car in for repair, and is not the type of quote-unquote junk vehicles to be
chopped up and left on the street. The RCO chairperson never advised that the property was
on an alleged quote-unquote nuisance list, as indicated in their letter dated April 21,
which, by the way, was given to me on April 28th. Moreover, not a single participant alleged or had
an iota of proof that this apparent long-standing problem of junk cars was the responsibility of
my client, considering my client and his tenant's responsible business practices, have not generated
any additional L&I violations, but for the special exception. And that's really important. If you
look at the history of L&I violations, other properties on that block, get them. My client
Other properties on that block, get them.
My client has zero L&I violations for any illegal use, junking of cars on the street, blocking of other people's property.
has zero L&I violations.
The only violation my client has ever received was for the special exception that we're here to clear up today.
As such, we meet the burden because we presented the categorical definitions and objective
standards governing the granting of the special exception.
We will provide testimony, we already did at the RCO and will today, that the proposed
use is not sustainably likely, substantially likely to cause a detrimental impact on the
health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood exceeding that which normally might be expected
from the type of use proposed. This RCO letter, which I do object to, fails to meet either its
burden of proof or burden of persuasion in opposing to the granting of the special exception,
merely stating that the property is on some sort of nuisance list and that quote-unquote junk cars
are being left on the street without providing a scintilla of evidence as to why the property
is suddenly on a list sent to the council person's office and how any of the junk cars are associated
with my client. When my client and the tenant have testified before them and will testify today
that junk cars are not serviced under his business model, that all deliveries and pickups
and pre-scheduled are pre-scheduled to avoid community disruption and all vehicles are stored
within the property and with that i'd like to call my first fact witness if that's okay mr chair
sure uh i want to call attorney harry cook who was uh present at the rco meeting on behalf of the
client mr cook could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
harry cook h-a-r-r-y c-o-o-k do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do proceed thank you mr chairman mr cook uh were you the attorney present at the
rco on behalf of the client yes i was okay and did anyone at the meeting identify junk cars
coming from this particular business?
No one at the RCO meeting identified any junk cars associated with this,
presented any evidence of any junk cars associated with this operation at the property.
And did the RCO identify this property as a nuisance property at the meeting
or had any evidence that the cars were related to this business?
Okay. Did anyone recognize that the junk car problem could be associated with one of the other businesses on the block, also automotive related?
Yes. And in addition, everyone did advise it was a longstanding problem.
Okay. Did Mr. Berkhauser speak to the RCO about his struggles dealing with the junk car problem on the block?
Yes, and your recitation of all the facts relating to what was presented to the RCO is accurate.
Did everyone recognize that junk cars were a problem even prior to this business becoming operational?
The general tone of the meeting was that this has been a longstanding problem, predating the change of use.
And the change of use was at the end of 2020, is that correct?
uh yes i believe so approximately the end right and the the problem of junk cars had been years
prior to that is that correct correct uh were you able to look at the rco letters submitted
in opposition to the special exception yes i did did anything strike you as curious
Yes. There's no list of attendants, no position of near neighbors. The identification of the property as the nuisance property on the list sent to the council person was new information.
I thought, you know, at an RCO when you're presenting and have had conversations leading up and provided, you know, notice that something like that would have been brought up, that this particular property was a nuisance property so that we would have the due process to be able to defend against that at the RCO meeting.
um further uh the the letter states as supposition that um you know somehow this applicant is
This applicant is responsible for all the cars in the street, but the actual sentence, if you could bring up the RCO letter, Vern?
responsible for all the cars in the street but the actual sentence
I don't believe that made our packet, but the...
That's okay. Essentially, it says, you know, two sentences in opposition.
The first being, to paraphrase, this is a nuisance property that is on the list we sent to the council person, period.
There are junk cars on the street.
Period. It never links the two. It never creates a nexus between the problem and the applicant's operation and is purely supposition and, in my opinion, does not meet the burden a protestant has in a special exception case.
Very good. And you reviewed the LNI history of violations on this particular property, have you not?
Yes, as it relates to the current owner, the violations relate to the use, special exception, and the requirement for a CO associated with that use.
No other violations about leaving abandoned cars on the street or oil problems or anything like that?
No nuisance problems listed, no anything like that.
In fact, on a review of 411, the cars I identified were 300 plus feet away from this property.
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Now I'd like to call my client, Mr. Berkhauser.
Let me see you, Mr. Berkhauser.
Mr. Burkhauser, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
He may be on the phone.
I'm not sure how he's logged on, unfortunately.
I did check with him.
Do you know the last four digits of his number, Mr. Anastasio?
I can get that for you.
I'm sorry.
Hold on.
I don't see that phone number.
i don't see any phone number ending with those four digits okay i'm going to go on to my next
uh witness the tenant of the property if that's okay maybe mr burkhausel will present himself
um can i uh call to for witness andre mcintyre
mr mcintyre please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes it's um andre mcintyre could you spell it please a-n-d-r-e-y first name last name is m-c-i-n-t-y-r-e
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed thank you mr chairman mr mcintyre uh is it true that you and mr burkhauser are
clients of our firm in order to secure the special exception? Yes. Okay. And did you hear
my presentation and the presentation of the fact witness attorney Harry Cook before the board this
morning? Correct. Okay. And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you very much. You were present at the RCO,
sir? Yes, sir. Okay. And you believed that the auto body work was consistent with the
property use and the other adjoining properties doing sorts of the same business. Is that right?
Yes. Okay. Recently, did someone come to you about junk cars as recently as a week ago or so?
yes from the community yes okay can you explain to me uh what was that uh what was that in a react
interaction like well um the person was just asking if i got cars sitting off the street so
i said no and i walked with her and i walked with her and um showed her that's not my car you know
mean i keep my cars in the shop okay so she she asked you if certain cars on what street
were yours that was worth street not our block okay and you followed her to worth street to
identify the automobiles is that right yes and when upon looking at the automobiles you explained to
Yes. And when upon looking at the automobiles, you explained to her that, no, those cars were
her that knows.
not associated with your business whatsoever. Is that right? Correct. Okay. And is it your
understanding that for the last several decades, Mr. Berkhauser has had a struggle with junk cars
blocking the property in question as well? Is that right? Yes. Okay. And he too has called
L&I to get those junk cars removed and are dealt with. Is that correct? Yes. Very good.
All your operations are by appointment only. Is that correct? Correct. And those cars are
pulled into the property and never leave that property until they're ready to be picked up by
your client. Is that right? Yes. Okay. And you were never notified that you were on some sort
of nuisance list from the community is that correct no okay yes yes
well you were notified recently but before that you had not been told that you were a nuisance
is that right no i've never been told okay thank you very much uh unless mr is mr burke i thank
you i have nothing further for this uh witness i would like to get mr burkhauser on uh the record
if he's still there or if he's there.
Chair, Mr. Burkhauser is available,
but when I go to unmute him,
it says he's not able to be unmuted
because he's using an older version of Zoom.
It's telling me to promote him to panelists.
Yes, he's been promoted.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
Joseph Berkhauser, J-O-S-E-P-H-B-E-R-K-A-U-Z-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Berkhauser, you heard my presentation to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
Was it true and accurate? And Mr. Cooks as well, is that correct?
Yes, sir.
And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Have you operated in this facility for the last 40 years as a welder?
We had a welding shop.
We started there in 1968, and I took over about 1993.
And during that time of running it, did you, too, have to deal with the problem of junk cars and abandoned cars blocking your business on a regular basis?
crisis? Yes, I did. And how did you handle it? I visited the 15th District. I stopped police
officers right in front of my shop. They devised me to call 411. I called 411. I pulled my hair
out. I couldn't get it resolved. Okay, so this was a long-standing problem prior to you leasing
this space out to mr mcintyre uh a year and a half ago is that right for many years sir okay
and you are surrounded literally surrounded by other automotive style businesses on the block
is that right correct two of them do nothing but auto body work and that's what a lot of these
cars are cars they're all smashed up with no tags on them right and the cars with no tags that's
been a real problem and a nuisance uh for the several decades that you've operated your business
is that right yes yes it was that was my big number one concern because i didn't have tags
understood understood uh and when you leased the property out in question you did believe that
the use was compatible with the code at the time was that correct yes i did and subsequently you
learned although it's assumed to be compatible there was the small uh issue of getting a special
exception is that right correct sir and how would you say mr mcintyre operates his business
i think mr mcintyre operates business like a business uh he's very professional he has a
you know does a lot of family work things like that people he knows so uh he's not getting people
just coming off the street i think he you know he operates his professional way okay and at no time
as far as you know, have you been approached or Mr. McIntyre been approached about a particular
either junk car or a car without tags that ended up being a car associated with your property? Is
that right? That's correct, sir. At no time. At no time. Thank you. And you were never issued
thank you and you were never issued any sorts of lni violations for any of the nuisance uses that we
any sorts of L&I violations for any-
discussed today is that right that's correct sir very well i have nothing further questions from
the board don't miss the chairman questions or comments questions or comments from the virtual
audience. Chair, we have Sloan Folks with his hand up. Mr. Folks, you can unmute yourself and
wait for the chair. Good morning, Mr. Folks. State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Good morning, Chairman Bergman, ZBA board, and all. My name is Sloan Folks, representing the
office of councilwoman maria canina sanchez 7th district room 508 city hall mr folks spell your
name we we have a different call i apologize my name is spelled sloan s-l-o-a-n-e folks f as in
fire o-l-k-s do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do sir thank you proceed um the applicant has met with the rco and has garnered a letter of
proposition um the councilman would like to put on the record that over the past three years this
office has worked with several city agencies including the 15th district police department
the department of licenses and inspections and the department of neighborhood services to address
the overwhelming number of unlicensed audible pair shops that operate in the frankfurt community
recently our office working with these agencies and the community has gained a foothold in
addressing this issue with over 100 abandoned autos removed from the streets and a tremendous
number of illegally operating businesses closed.
Given the concerns of the community and the outcome of the RCO meeting, our office is
going to oppose this variance request.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Folks.
Just two quick points, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I respect going after you leave.
Vern, Vern, let me see if there's anybody else
that has a comment.
Yes, sir.
And then you can come up.
Thank you.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Go ahead, Vern.
just in closing that this use i mean i respect mr sloan's office going after quote-unquote
illegal uses of auto body places this is uh this particular property this use is assumed compliant
uh we're not seeking a variance so uh we're merely seeking a specialist exception so this
property would be outside of that category of quote illegal non-compliant uh uses it's assumed
compliant unless this specific property can be identified as an evidence can be either submitted
or testimony taken that this specific property has caused any particular detrimental impacts
on the community and by the way along with the council office and the community and the police
district mr burkhauser has spent decades trying to deal with these cars uh with zero uh no license
plates on them uh we've offered testimony uh to that regard and there is absolutely no evidence
uh that there is that this particular property uh should not get the relief of a special exception
Unfortunately, the RCO letter does not meet its burden.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the industrial and commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
The applicant has shown that the proposed vehicle repair and maintenance facility
would have no more of an impact than such a facility would be expected to have and so the
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant a special exception. Thank you. MI 2020
003 118 2109 Gillingham Street I vote yes. Harold Tenere my vote is yes. Thomas Solomon
My vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could you stay on, please, sir?
Yes, sir.
MI number four and number six will be heard together.
MI 2021-005-247-2303.
005-247-2303, Delancey Street, and MI 2021, 005-224-2319, Delancey Street.
The counsel is Justin Crick. I do not see an RCO letter. Vern Anastasio represents neighbors opposing this in the area.
Mr. Crick has been promoted to panelist here.
Mr. Crick, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N, last name is K-R-I-K, address is 1500 JFK Boulevard,
Suite 630, Philly, PA, 19102.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your clients in these two cases and their relationship to the property?
Yes, the clients are entities known as 2303 Delancey LLC and 2319 Delancey LLC, and I have Anthony Massiri here as representative and principal of those entities.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Crick. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
In each instance, we do. The RCO letter was not submitted by me, but it was submitted, I believe, directly by the RCO to the board.
So we have exhibit packets on both of these cases.
That is correct.
Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen.
thank you excuse me mr chair this is hillary um i i have seen the rco letter for 2303 delancey but
i have not seen the rco letter uh for 2319 thank you mr chair this is burt anastasio i just
forwarded to attorney emerson of the copy that i had from ccra uh opposing uh 2319 as they opposed
2303 thank you thank you mr anastasio you're quite welcome mr crick why don't you start
all right thank you i'm just grabbing the appropriate document for you um we'll go with
this one first uh members of the board um i'm here presenting uh for the properties at 2303
delancey place and 2319 delancey place um let me unpause that for a moment
all right are you able to see the uh current appeal binder we can all right thank you um
the two properties while they are they are uh on the same block and and and i have separate uh
materials for each the the substance of the applications are extremely similar and i will
start by presenting the information for 2303 delancey place um in which case the property is
an rm1 i should say again since the arguments are the same the properties are located in an rm1
district and the applicant is seeking use of the properties for eight dwelling units in the existing
structures we are short on lot square footage in the case of 2303 we have 2058 square feet
of lot size the required amount for eight units is 3360. in the case of 2319 the lot area is 2019
feet but with the same required proposed or required square footage for the eight units as 3360.
and i'll scroll down for geographic purposes uh to orient everyone the properties are located
between 23rd and 24th street along delancy place 2303 is located at one end of the block and 2319
is is approximately a few houses from the other end of the block same side of the street
as this aerial map will show there is a drive aisle in the back actually a full street but
basically a drive aisle in the back uh and affords that uh approximately two compact
parking spots per property in the rear and again the surrounding area is generally listed as rm1
for multi-family use some additional photographs this is again only of 20 uh 2303 i'll present the
material shortly for 2319 but as you can see the the houses of a similar structure all along the
The houses have a similar structure all along the block.
block, they are three.
They are three stories tall with basement allowable height increase to up to a fourth story, which is not sought at this time.
Here's some photographs of the frontage of 2303 and the rear of the property.
and the current plans in front of you show the the plan submitted to the rco seeking
uh eight dwelling units uh each one bedroom units there is no intention for studios or micro units
here um and i i will say at the outset that the applicant is prepared to accept a proviso for
uh fewer units to to accommodate the opposition that has been presented or will be presented
at today's hearing and is prepared to accept the proviso for less than the eight units.
Some photographs of the interior of the property show that it is pretty wide and open,
spacious in the halls, and unit sizes would be adequate enough to handle the density that
we're seeking. The applicant himself or itself has had years of experience in locally self-managed
rental properties. They maintain in-house management and maintenance and have, with their
standing on the reputation, have been able to receive approval for similar density variances
over the last three to five years in the area. And just some photographs. This is the basement
of 2303. This is the initial page of the agreement of sale. As with 2303, the applicant is under
contract about to close on the property, whereas with 2319, they are already the owner of the
property and the deed is attached there too. We have the tax clearance certificate for 2303 as
well as 2319, which I'll share again shortly to just briefly go through. Pictures of the zoning
posters and before I go into some of the support we have I just would like to indicate that
there are several properties on the block again this is an RM1 district several properties on
the block including most notably 2301 which is I'm sorry 2305 which is the immediate adjacent
property with and is approved for legally has seven units allowable in it the based on this
the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood that has allowed greater density in properties
with smaller footprints, we believe that there will be a hardship with the disparate treatment
for this property, especially where the exact neighbor or a direct neighbor to this is allowed
seven units for their property, and that the highest and best use of these RM1 properties
is to provide for greater density but with more affordably priced units. As you can see from the
layout that that was presented it is very common and we have very similar orientation to those
properties in the neighborhood with the front rear unit types and again that that is more than
the applicant is more than willing to accommodate by decreasing some of that density but this is a
very common orientation for multi-unit properties in the area front and rear
we do have support from several neighbor owners on the block uh and and just to point that out
they are uh located at 2305 2301 2323 and then across the street there are several there are
three continuous buildings at 2308 2310 and 2312 who do not oppose they those properties are six
seven, and eight units, respectively. And so let me bring up very quickly the information
on 2319, if I may. Nope, I'm sorry. Give me one moment.
23.03.
I apologize.
Give me one second just to get to the correct document.
Okay, here we go.
Okay. Are you able to see the 2319 binder in front of you?
are you able to see the 2319 binder in front of you now yes could you just make it a little bit
larger yes i can thank you thank you um so very similar situated property other than it being
further down the block um the property is located at the other end of
delancey place and we are again just showing whereas 2303 is at this end of the block 2319
is at the farther end of the block
frontage photos rear photos this one has a a gate to access the parking
similar layout as front and rear orientation for the eight units.
Interior photos demonstrating very spacious property that can, we believe, accommodate
the increased density.
And here's a copy of the deed for Delancey Place or the exemplar of the first page.
tax clearance certificate, photos of postings, as well as neighborhood statements of support
slash non-opposition from the same parties who were supportive of the 2303 property.
We would like to note that in several instances, we understand there's opposition. We did meet
with the RCO and have had several discussions with counsel for some of the opposition.
The applicant has proposed, and in its plans, does indicate dedicated trash areas for interior
use and private trash pickup for all of its properties.
They have also been willing to offer dedication to the beautification of the neighborhood,
willing to plant trees and provide annual street cleanings for the neighborhood as they are a local self-managed property owner
and participates in the neighborhood on all of its properties.
In dealing with the opposition, we do believe that some of that opposition feels to be overstated
in that we've seen several instances of signatures from tenants who are either transient or
in some particular instances, as testimony will show, where there are opposition from occupants
of the subject properties themselves who are vacating within the next two weeks. And so we
don't believe that their opposition should be given any weight. Similarly, we believe that in
review of some of the opposition there are uh there is credit being given for multiple members
of the same households and in certain instances we have found that we have support from the record
owner uh but there is opposition from tenants in the neighborhood or tenants of those properties
and we believe that the the owner support should should trump that um mr chair respectfully i just
I just want to object to the classification of signatures that we haven't even presented yet.
I understand. I understand your points.
So here's where I'd like to be is I'd like for you to maybe have your testimony adopted by the owners of both properties.
And then before I go to the virtual audience, I'll go back to Mr. Anastasio and he can present his case.
Is that OK?
That is, and so long as I would like the opportunity to rebut any opposition testimony.
You absolutely will, and so will he.
So why don't you have your testimony adopted by both?
Very good.
At this time, then I'd like to call my fact witness, Anthony Messieri.
Mr. Messieri, you can unmute yourself and wait for the share.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, Anthony Messieri.
A-N-T-H-O-N-Y
M-A-S-C-I-E-R-I
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Crick.
Thank you. Mr. Massiri, have you had an opportunity to hear my statements presented to the board today?
Do you believe my statements to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt my statements as if they were your own testimony?
me yes i do thank you uh mr massiri um could you please uh indicate for me uh what it is what
um could you please uh indicate for me uh what it is what efforts and understanding
of support that you've received for this application
yes uh you know we've we've obviously spoken with uh with with vern and i've met with many of the
neighbors on the block and um you know our understanding of their concerns about density
um you know it's a mixed block consisting of more multi-family buildings and single family buildings
you know, ranging from singles all the way up to any unit building. And, you know, we merely seek
what is already existing on this one block. We do have support from people on this block.
We are very experienced in the, you know, the development of these buildings and maintaining
the original historic character. And we are willing to reduce unit count and, you know,
work out an agreement where we participate in the neighborhood and clean the streets and plant
trees and and um you know be a good neighbor and is it your is it your testimony to the board that
you are you are prepared to accept a seven unit approval for these buildings at this time
yes i think that the important thing to note is the square footage of these units
you know they there's one at 350 one at 400 but by and large most of them are in the 500
up to 600 square foot range um there are far smaller units throughout center city philadelphia
in Rittenhouse in Fittler Square.
It's a 20-foot wide building.
It certainly has the scale and size
for this moderate increase in density.
And is it your understanding
that the property directly adjacent to 2303,
the property located at 2305,
currently is approved for seven units?
It's actually a 2301.
It's currently a seven-unit building, yes.
Thank you. And have you had an opportunity to review some of the opposition that's been presented
in this case? Yes, I have. And is it your belief that the opposition
in some cases is from properties that are quite a distance away?
Yes, there's some opposition from, I believe it was either 15th or 16th Street, which is not even
the same neighborhood. And is it your understanding that you've obtained the support or non-opposition
from certain owners of properties, whereas you've understood that some of the tenants of those
properties are in opposition? Yes, correct. At 2308 and 2310, we have letters of non-opposition
for eight units. The opposing side has presented letters of opposition from tenants of that
building. Similarly, our building that we have since closed on 2303, one of those tenants
voiced opposition, but they will be leaving the property in May of this year. So obviously,
we have issues with granting any weight to these type of letters of opposition, as well as
minors and four people in one household. Okay. I'd like to reserve Mr. Mysterious
testimony for rebuttal at this time, but I believe that's all the questions I have for him on this.
So what we'll do is we'll let Mr. Anastasio go, and then what we'll do is we'll open it up to the
board and the virtual audience. So Mr. Anastasio, why don't you present your case? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask council to close his screen so I could share my exhibits, I do have a question,
a couple of cross for the witness. Go ahead.
Sir, when did you purchase 2319?
I don't have the date in front of me, but we closed on that a few months ago.
And when it was marketed and sold to you, how many units was it sold to you?
What did you buy?
How many units?
It was a buy right five unit building.
But how many units were actually in the building?
I'm not sure.
That's not really, I understand the point that you're getting at.
Physically, yeah.
how many units did you buy physically? It's a five unit by right building. I understand that,
but how many rental licenses did you have for the building? I actually, I do not recall. Okay.
Would it surprise you that you only had three? No, that happens a lot. Okay. Would it surprise
you that when you purchased this property and you say you don't remember how many units you
actually purchased, there was only three apartments in the building? Well, when we
seek out these properties and look for them, we always pay attention to what's buy right.
Understood. Did you pay attention to the interior of the property? Did you walk the property
before purchasing? Yes, of course. Okay. How many units did you see? And you're under oath,
by the way. Well, yes. When we walk these properties, Vern, we know what the buy
Well, yes. When we walk these properties, Vern, we know what the buy-write count is. And we walk the properties with... I'm explaining to you what our process is.
I didn't ask you your process respectfully, Anthony. I asked you when you testified that you physically inspected the property prior to purchase. When you walk through the property, how many apartments did you see?
And Vern, I'm telling you...
The answer should be a number.
Yeah, and I do not remember because we look at square footage and buy-write counts,
and we do our analysis and our walkthrough on what we're able to do with our development.
Okay, so when you walk through the property,
it's your testimony that you don't remember how many units you saw?
Correct.
Okay, would it surprise you that you actually saw only three apartments?
No, it would not surprise me.
Okay, but it surprised you that the MLS listing, which I'm assuming you reviewed,
had photos of three apartments in the building no it would not surprise me okay uh your your
attorney presented photos of 2319. mr kirk could you please uh produce those again for the board
sorry you said 2319 yes sir the interior photos
Thank you. Anthony, could you tell me, did you take these photos?
Yes, I did.
Okay. And was this, when did you take them?
I took those a few days after the interior demolition was complete.
I see.
Was that before or after L&I shut you down for doing work beyond the scope of your building application?
It was before, but that's not the entire story, if you'd like me to address that.
There was a violation issued and a work order stopped.
Is that correct?
So I met the inspector on site to review the demolition, which was all interior walls, as you can see.
You can also see, for the record, we kept all door and window trim.
There were doors on site, all the balusters, stair railings.
I understand. I'm just asking if you were aware that there was a violation issued for working beyond the scope.
Is that correct?
So I met with Giovanni Caputo on site, an inspector we've worked with.
Can you answer the question?
Yes, I am. I met Giovanni Caputo on site. He reviewed the demolition.
I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the violation that shut the job down due to operating beyond the scope of the permit.
That's all I want to know.
That's a yes or no, sir.
Thank you.
And we stopped immediately.
Understood.
I understand.
In old buildings, there's a lot of, you know, you have to be really sensitive to the structure.
And when we met the inspector on site, he was concerned with the basement, and then we stopped immediately.
Understood. So the property didn't look like this when you purchased it. Is that right?
Correct. No, we pulled a demo permit and demoed the interior finishes.
Save all the historical elements.
Understood. Mr. Kirk, could you please stop sharing so that I could put up my exhibits?
I do want to ask the witness, Mr. Messieri, your counsel mentioned about
some of the petitions assigned by folks on the 2300 block in opposition to going beyond what's
a matter of right. And he meant he sort of seemed to to proffer that there's some sort of difference
between people who own property in Philadelphia
and people who occupy property in Philadelphia.
Were you aware that the zoning board
and actually no legal jurisdiction
offers heavier weight to the position
or testimony of an owner
than they do an occupant or resident
of a community neighborhood?
Were you aware of the difference?
It calls for a legal conclusion.
Okay, Mr. Kirk, were you aware of the difference?
mr anastasia i'm not i'm not testifying as a witness to the case okay very well
i'm going to share my screen now
are we looking at 2319 delancey place anthony
i don't see anything quite yet not up yet berman you got to tap it away
not there okay let's try again and we're back to us okay
give me one moment
Give me one moment.
That should do it.
See it now?
Very good.
Is this the listing of 2319 Delancey Place?
Michael?
Anthony.
I'm sorry, Anthony.
I'm sorry.
My apologies.
Yeah, it looks like.
Like, I'm not sure what portal or what service that is.
Is that MLS?
It's the MLS right here at the top.
Right.
Okay, I see it now.
Through Redfin.
So this is 2319.
You purchased this property.
And this is what you purchased, right?
Oh, I'm sorry.
This is a one-of-a-kind brownstone attributed to Frank Furness.
Correct.
And the property type is multifamily, two to four units, is how it was listed and identified.
Is that right?
That's how they identified it, correct.
And that's how you purchased it, right, upon review of this MLS.
Based on this listing, this is what you purchased.
Is that right?
We purchased, in addition to that, public record, it is a five-unit by right building.
I stipulate to that.
Thank you.
and these were the plans that came with the purchase right each having apartments
that were oh sorry each were having apartments uh that were over a thousand square feet
in some instances is that correct yes the main uh house owners lived on the first floor and
then they would have their families stay in the various apartments upstairs and these were these
were three units at the time uh we stipulate that you can have five as a matter of right
and these are pretty ample size units would you not say as as this plan illustrates yes they're
very large and and your plan is to chop them up uh to uh between 350 square feet
to just over 500 square feet is that right 350 to 650. which unit of yours are you proposing that's
650. If you look at our documents, Vern, you see there's one at 463, 588, 581, 526, and 658.
So there's none at 538? What do you mean 538? 538 square feet.
Exactly 538 square feet. That's correct. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Okay, that's fine. Now let's look at what you purchased, okay? The photos before you tore the
place up here's objection the relevance i i i think it's really relevant mr chair of what the
guy bought so i i think we're going to say he did work in there instead of tear it up he did he did
work well yeah but it's a property based this is what he got it built not somebody gutted prior to
even securing zoning relief yet again objection as as the the owner testified that he purchased
it based on its zoning potential well i think i think verne's questions coming off what what he
sees there and and we're gonna leave this is what this is what the witness purchased
and i do want to ask the witness anthony is this what you purchased yes
okay turnkey viable three three family dwelling is that right objection with the knowledge that
you could go to five is that right we did not purchase a turnkey three in a dwelling that
is never our intention so okay that's how it was marketed my apologies
how it's marketed and what we purchase are two different things
this this is turn k you could move right in i think i think the evidence speaks for itself
all right bern why don't you move on we understand what your
your presentation uh and here is the record of three rental units
for the property in question is that right
yes very good
And now let's look at 2303, the Lansing Place.
You just skipped through the, never mind, you can continue.
Everything's already been entered into evidence.
2303, the Lansing Place.
This MLS listing says it's a multifamily.
And in the description,
fabulous turnkey investment and amazing
fabulous turnkey investment, an amazing opportunity to own a quadruple in Fittler Square.
I would like to ask the witness, do you understand what the word quadruple means
when you purchase this property? Yes. What does that mean, sir? How many units?
It means four. It means four. Okay, very well. So you purchased this property with a physical
four unit as a physical four unit but without the understanding that you have a you have the right
as a matter of code to get five is that right correct okay
and there's that property there now let's go to i'll briefly
go to the signatures, most of whom are on either 24th or Delancey.
Yes. Can you go back one page? Well, that's already been submitted, sir. I do want to say
that I am going to stipulate, Mr. Chair, that yes, some of these people, you know,
heaven forbid actually live on the block they're just not owners who live somewhere else uh these
were folks who have to live with the construction that was done to 2319 uh and would have to live
with the increase in number uh so i just want to walk you through 2319 signatures as well as 2303
also want to stipulate that if a household has more than one member
as many members who live in that house certainly could sign a petition or voice their opposition.
There are no rules of evidence that bar renters or people that don't have means to purchase a home
from involving themselves in a legal proceeding.
in short mr chair the witness testified that he purchased a three-bedroom and a quad
we're going to hear evidence today that these were viable properties as they were
he testified that he gutted one and that it was shut down for the work being beyond the scope
And the argument is here that they want you to believe that because some other properties on the block got zoning relief whenever that was, that this property is entitled to the same relief.
My client's position, and you'll hear this with two witnesses very quickly, that they're okay with the applicant and the appellant revamping these homes.
to their highest and fullest potential which is five family dwellings that's what they're allowed
as a matter of right it's still more than what they purchased but that eight is an overbill
i mean we think you know there's a term for it and i hear it often on the side when i sit on
council kirk's side this is called beds and heads we want to take sustainable nice size units and
chop them up to 350 square feet and a little bit beyond that uh it's just an overbuild if there
ever was one and there's zero evidence zero evidence or testimony that any hardship exists
i mean this is why don't why don't we move on with your your witnesses please yep i'm going
to call patrick campbell please mr campbell could you state your name is spelled for the court
reporter mr campbell please unmute yourself and wait for the chair hi state your name and spell
for the court reporter please patrick campbell p-a-t-r-i-c-k-c-a-m-p-b-e-l-l do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed mr campbell um first
and foremost did you hear my presentation to the board this morning yes i did the true and accurate
to the best of your knowledge? Yes, it is. You adopt it as your own testimony. Yes, I do.
Where do you live again? 2314 Delancey is a home that I am going to move into very soon.
Very good. You just purchased it and you're redamping it. Right. And what do you do for a
living? I'm a realtor in Center City. I've been a realtor here for 20 years. I'm the top selling
agent in Fittler Square for the past six years. Fittler Square being this particular neighborhood,
is that right? Correct. Okay. And were you aware of these listings, the three-family
Were you aware of these listings, the three-family and the four-family that were posted on the MLS?
and the four-family that were?
Yes. 2319 Delancey, I had walked through. 2303 Delancey came up on the market.
I was excited about this listing. I called the listing agent right away.
She told me what it was, a turnkey property.
But then she told me that it was under contract.
So this sold even before it came on the market.
Very good. You are aware that the property as they are zoned and based on the square footage, each property could have five apartments in them. Is that right?
Okay. Were the properties as purchased viable properties given the market?
Okay. Would they be even more profitable and or viable if each were to be built out to five
units as a matter of right? I don't know because I don't know the contract, like how much it would
cost to build out those units to get to the five units, but they were certainly rentable out as
as they were purchased. Understood. Very good. And that's a fair question. You do oppose
overbuilding eight units per building. Is that right? Yes, I'm opposed to building eight units
in each building. And why is that, sir? There's many reasons. Parking is a big one. There's no
reason to bring more parking to the block, more parking problems. Moving trucks, people moving in
and out of the block. It presents problems. That's 16 more units on the block, which means
a lot of moving in and moving out. Is it your testimony that it would adversely impact
congestion, traffic flow, and the health and well-being of the block if it were to be overbuilt
to eight units per building yes that's correct thank you anything else to add briefly uh no
thank you i call edmund edwin smith mr chair if i if i may oh go ahead i'm sorry yes yes mr
campbell uh just just a quick question you indicated that that would be 16 more units but
you agree that there would be 10 of those would be by right at this point correct
yes sir um and did you have any opposition to a lesser amount of units proposed as the applicant
had indicated a willingness to do seven in each which would only increase by four not six i oppose
anything above the by right allowance understood your next witness please mr edwin smith and i'll
be very brief, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Mr. Smith?
There he is.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Edwin Smith, E-D-W-I-N-S-M-I-T-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith, do you own the property adjacent to 2319?
Okay. And what is your position on the proposal for eight units for both 2319 and 2303?
My wife and I are in opposition.
Why is that, sir?
Well, we've been there for 42 years, and we're aware of sounds that come from either side of us through the walls.
These houses were built in 1865, or 1875, rather.
And to go from five to eight units, you're talking about a potential of 16 people next door, pets, children, guests.
The sound levels would really make it very unlivable here.
It would be more like living in a tenement.
You are aware that the proposed eight units in 2319 would range anywhere from 350 square feet to somewhere in the fives, maybe six.
that's why it's likely to have two people per apartment and possibly children and pets and
that's why the noise level would be very very difficult to live with you're aware that the
property 2319 was purchased as a triplex is that right that's right it was an owner occupied and
That's right. It was an owner-occupied and two apartments. It had been that way throughout the entire period we've lived here.
in two apartments, it had been that way.
42 years, is that right?
That's correct.
And despite that, you're still willing to wholeheartedly support what the appellant can do as a matter of right, which is up to five units in that one building. Is that right?
I can't oppose that.
Very well. Very reasonable. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
May I add one other thing?
There are four or five or six houses on my side of the block, starting from the corner down, which are owner-occupied and single-occupancy.
Very well. Thank you.
I don't know if Mr. Crick has cross.
I do not have cross for this witness.
I have no further witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
Just in conclusion, there's, like I said, this is a beds and heads situation, not one scintilla of evidence or any sworn testimony that to go above and beyond five units per building needs to happen because there's some sort of hardship here.
There just isn't.
Thanks.
Mr. Correctee, I have any quick comments.
i i would like to if i if i may just if it would um for the board share one of one of my screens
with with the petitions that were shown um by mr anastasio and if possible um question my client
as to the the petition that was signed question his client about my petition well i i would like
to ask questions regarding the signatures on your petition. Did your client circulate them?
I don't get it. No, in rebuttal to the evidence presented.
I don't understand how that's relevant. You know, it's a material piece of evidence
that if it's going to be rebutted, you would get the person who circulated it.
That's basically how you attack a piece of evidence.
so so what here here mr correct the the issue is going to be why don't you summarize and you
object to some of the signatures it's as simple as that i mean i i think we want to move this along
understood as as indicated before we do object to some of the signatures as either being redundant
or parties that are outside of a reasonable distance of the property uh and also uh in
contradiction to the to the signatures of the of some of the owners of the property and we just
believe that that opposition is overstated on those petitions. I do respect that there were
two witnesses that came on today that testified themselves, and the weight of their testimony
will be given what the board elects to do with that. In summary of our position,
it has been stated that the applicant is prepared to accept a lesser amount of density than what
has been sought, but above the by-right petition, or I'm sorry, the by-right allowance of five units.
And we would hope that the board at this time would grant a variance with such proviso.
Thank you.
Questions from the board for either parties?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Chair, we have a Mr. Wade Albert.
Mr. Albert, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Mr. Albert, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Wade Albert, W-A-D-E.
Last name is A-L-B-E-R-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
So I am counsel for the coordinating RCO, the Center City Residents Association,
and i'm with the law firm of stevens and lee uh first off i want to apologize about i uh i looked
through my records it looks like that we sent the rco letters uh regarding our uh our decision on
march 29th 2022 so uh sorry if you did not receive that um but uh regardless of that uh we held a
virtual meeting uh for the community uh on the same day that our letter was issued and at that
meeting uh there were eight neighbors uh who spoke regarding this project um the overwhelming
position of those neighbors was negative uh largely for the same reasons that mr anastasio's
witnesses uh said today their concerns were about parking their concerns were about potential for
renting properties as short-term rentals as airbnbs or something of that sort and based on the um
the positions of the neighbors, a number of which of those eight.
the positions of the neighbors a number of which of those eight five lived on the 2300 block of
Delancey place we voted to oppose both of the projects that are before you right now
and in addition to the reasons that were communicated by the neighbors the the zoning
committee itself for CCRA did not believe that the applicant in either case met their burden
of establishing any reason for unnecessary hardship.
So for that reason, on behalf of CCRA,
we respectfully request that the ZBA deny variances
with regard to both of these cases.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Ms. Kastenberg.
Ms. Kastenberg, you can unmute yourself
or wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter please hi my name is judith kastenberg j-u-d-i-t-h last name
kastenberg k-s-t-e-n-b-e-r-g right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed i live i'm an owner at 2313 delancey on the same block as the
two projects um i live in a single family but i have two one clarification and one question
earlier it was presented that Cypress Street, the alley that runs behind the block between Delancey
and Spruce is a city street. It is not. It's actually an easement owned by the people on Delancey.
Then my question is, it looked like the documents that Mr. Crick showed in support of the project
were all from owners of multi-unit buildings on the block.
I wanted to clarify that
because I believe single-family owners were in opposition.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
And I don't want your question to Mr. Crick.
He's an attorney.
So why don't you just give us your position?
It would be easier.
It seemed to me that the people in favor of the project
own multi-unit buildings on the block.
have the same interests as the developer right and what's your position i oppose the project
you know i live on the block there's i love the renters um you know they're terrific people but
there is an enormous amount of trash and turnover etc thank you very much for calling in are the is
there any other comments from the virtual audience chair we have france pierre mr pierre you can
then mute yourself and wait for the chair. Mr. Pierre, state your name and spell for the court
reporter. Hello, good morning. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, that's Franz Pierre, that's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, fellow board members.
At this time, Council Member Johnson's office, we do join the near neighbors as well as the RCO in opposition to the appeal.
Thank you very much for calling in, sir.
Thank you.
Any other comments that would add to this from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Daniel Rader.
Mr. Rader, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Rader.
State your name.
It's spelled for the court reporter.
Daniel Rader, R-A-D-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth?
The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
We are owners on 2316 Delancey, and we wanted to register our opposition.
I'm here with my wife, Carolyn Canuccio, registering our opposition.
uh to this um thank you thank you very much for calling in is there anyone that has anything
different they would like to present in the virtual audience i see the heads at this time
chair planning commission thank you sir uh good morning uh david fecto city planning commission
mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multiple family zoning at this location. There is no unique physical condition of either 2303 or
2319 Delancey Place, which are just over 2,000 square feet each, that would prevent them from
being used in conformance with the zoning code. Based on the lot area, each lot could house five
units by right, so eight is not the minimum needed to derive value from the land.
So eight is not the minimum needed to derive value from the land.
The applicant, having failed to show a hardship, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the variance for both properties.
Thank you.
MI 2021-005-247-2303 Delancey Place.
and MI 2021-005-224-2319 Delancey Place.
I vote no for both properties.
Carol Tineri, my vote is no for both properties.
Thomas Hollowan, my vote is no for both properties.
James Snell, my vote is no to both.
Mr. Mayor Shahid, my vote is no to both properties.
Thank you.
Thank you, both counsel.
Thank you.
MI 2021-003215-2625 West Oxford.
Raymond DeRizio is the attorney.
Letter of support from Brewery Town Chargerswood Community Civic Association.
chairman dorizio is coming back in as a panelist now council state your name and spell for the
court reporter good morning mr chairman and members of the board raymond dorizio d-o-r-i-z-i-o
and I am representing 2625 West Oxford Street.
The owners, Kevin Dixon and Vernet Dixon.
And I believe they're on the call.
You swear for them to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Our vice chair, Carlton Harry, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. DiRizio.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you did I ask you if you've met with the RCO uh no but we have and yes I have
submitted those documents at those times okay great you may proceed to share your screen
thank you okay so if you could just bear with me one moment because I am operating from my iPad
okay so this is 2625 west oxford street as i stated um basically what my client is seeking
to do is have a business or professional office space on the first floor with two dwelling units
on the second in the existing structure. They're not seeking to make any changes to the exterior.
This property or the deed, I'll go through that. Mr. Dixon was granted this, obtained this property
2004. Here are some of the plans. There's several, several pages. And I think I attached
doubles of them. But essentially, I'm going to get to the last page of it, because it's going
to give you a better view. Here is that on the first floor, what my client has is a space for
events basically in office. It's going to be a meeting area. She does non-profit work so she has
various interested parties that come in and have meetings regarding some of the ventures that
they're undertaking and as she has talked about and Mr. Dixon has talked about at the RCO meeting
that it would be open for the public to use as a meeting space or a gathering place for projects or
or meetings that involve the community or individuals from the community that need it.
The second floor, there would be two one-bedroom units.
Basement would be utilities and such.
These are some more of the plans.
I'm going to get to some photos of the property.
There's the property in the center.
Next to it is a similar property.
um these this is the street it's oxford street closer to 27th um there is work being done in
the neighborhood there are several multi-family properties that are being built i believe on
26 23 there's going to be a four unit property that is being built these are the surrounding
streets mainly residential a map i have a tax clearance here
mainly residential a map. I have a tax clearance here that I attached and I
also emailed one in separately on the same date I submitted the packet that is
more updated tax clearance. We have met with Brewery Town Sharswood, the RCO.
This is a vote total. I believe they sent in their letter independently. It's a
letter of support or non-opposition. My client lives on the block. They've been residents of
the community for several years. We don't believe that there's any negative impact based on this.
And in fact, it will provide a benefit for the community and that, you know, the office space
meeting place will be available for use by members of the community when needed.
So with that, I would just call my clients to certify my testimony.
So Mr. Dixon and Verne and Kevin, are you on the call?
Do we see any hands?
i know they were on for a while yeah oh here they are mr dixon okay mr dixon could you state
your name and spell for the court reporter kevin dixon k-e-v-i-n d as in dog i x-o-n
right you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir what is it okay to use just mr dixon is that okay count that's fine
go ahead mr dixon you heard my testimony to the board yes sir and is it true and accurate
yes sir okay and you would adopt it of your as your own yes sir okay thank you sir questions
from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman and and council in in the paperwork
it said events areas when in fact this is just a meeting space is that correct yes essentially
that's basically what my clients their office is a meeting space essentially so it would be
a meeting space slash office right questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission good morning david fecto city
planning commission mr chairman and members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the single family zoning at this location the property has a documented history
of auto repair so a professional office would appear to be less impactful than the previous use
the property assessment record indicates that the property already has four bedrooms so given the
existing conditions of the property this also appears to be essentially a legalization of a
residential use. So the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variances.
Thank you very much. MI-2021-003215-2625 West Oxford Street, I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
MI 2021-003-197-4353 Paul Street. We have no exhibits. This is the second listing.
Is there anyone here associated with the property?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
M.I. 2021-003-197-4353, Paul Street. I vote. We dismiss.
Carol Tenere, dismiss. Thomas Solomon, dismiss. James Snell, dismiss. Ishmael Shahid, dismiss.
this. MI 2021-005-226-4734 North Street. Joseph Consol is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition for Taconi Civic Association.
Chair, Mr. Consol is coming back in as a panelist now. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Consul. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, board. It's Joseph Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Good morning, Board. It's Joseph Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Good morning. Joseph Consul here for 4734 North Street. Is my screen sharing up with my packet?
Okay. The owner of the property is Thomas Coughlin. He's on this call.
This property is a 3,184-square-foot corner lot.
Mr. Consul, our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this meeting,
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all thank you may proceed and share
your screen okay so i've got my zoning appeal packet up still uh it's a 3184 square foot corner
lot at noor and hagerman just going to give you guys a little front view uh this red uh brick
building is the four-bedroom single-family home this property next to it uh was historically
a deli and a grocery store um and around the corner this is the hagram and street side
and this is the back and the side of the property and the garage that i'm going to be
speaking about in one moment. So in the 1930s, the property was approved for a grocery store
and a single-family home. As I just showed you, there was a garage structure approved and built
in the back facing Hagerman Street. When my client bought the property, the deli was boarded up and
partially rehabbed as a single-family unit, one bedroom, and the garage structure, as you saw,
was in need of rehabilitation uh so at the moment the property has two units in one structure
and a separate garage with which fronts on Hagerman street um and we have uh there's the
two electric meters um for those two units uh for the uh this former grocery store structure here
and the single-family home there.
So let's back up.
Our goal here today is to seek approval
to legalize the existing second unit
to remove the old garage
and construct a third unit that faces Hagerman Street.
My client had originally designed and submitted plans
to rehabilitate the garage into a three-unit building,
and our original variance request
included those three units plus legalizing the second unit in the former grocery store.
However, we met with Tocconi Civic on February 28th. At that time, they were interested in the
rehab of the property, but were not interested in adding three new units. They suggested a single
family uh unit uh and not a three a three unit building where the garage is and um because they
suggested that uh we took it to my client um and we rehab the plans we submitted our provide our
plans with provisos showing um that that what was originally requested to be a um a three bedroom
unit a three unit uh where the garage is is now a single three bedroom unit for a family
um so the rco in response to that submitted their letter of non-opposition and um they also
submitted a list of provisos all of which my client is prepared to uh accept and adopt if
if they're enforceable to the extent they're enforceable the exterior of the new proposed
structure has not changed but our request now is to legalize the two units that currently sit on
the property and build the third unit into a three-bedroom single-family unit which will face
hegerman street okay so my packet contains the new plans my packet contains the the photos of
the property and all the other required documents we believe there are unique physical characteristics
of the lot that demonstrate sufficient hardship for the granting of this variance.
First of all, we have a large corner property, which has most of the frontage on Hagerman Street.
So there's an existing garage structure that is sorely in need of rehabilitation and being replaced.
There's an existing garage structure that is sorely
And the existing structure was in the past, as I said, approved for a deli and a grocery store for at least 90 years ago, as far back as I could tell in the zoning archive.
but we don't believe that converting that structure back into a deli or a grocery store
would be beneficial for the neighborhood as they specifically stated they did not want
commercial use in that property so just going to give you another view of the side of this
property here and regarding the construction of the third unit in place of the existing garage
the single-family nature of this side of the block of Hegerman will not be disturbed,
as although this is technically on the same North Street lot, the new structure will front Hegerman
and be in line with the existing single-family homes on that side of the block. Incidentally,
the other side of Hegerman Street is multifamily, this whole building here.
Finally, this garage itself sits out like a sore thumb on the block.
And we believe that replacing it will beautify the neighborhood and create a nice sense of unity with the rest of the block on Hagerman, whereas now it's just kind of the side, the awkward side of this property, which fronts Noor.
Call my client.
Tom, if you could raise your hand virtually.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
There's no one hand raised by their name.
Tom, are you in the audience?
Mr. Counsel, you're an officer of the court. We'll accept your testimony.
Okay. Thank you. I'll rest on...
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Counselor, what's the hardship for five units?
we're not seeking five units um mr holliman we are seeking the rehabilitation of the garage
into as the rco uh wanted one unit uh and the legalization of the two units that sit on the
property already the four bedroom home and the uh existing former deli uh slash grocery store
so it'd be a total how many units three okay thank you so what does the deli become the third
unit well the the the deli where to go the deli is this building right and you can see from the front
um that that structure right there on the left there is uh like i said um primed to to become
it's it's a single a single family or a single bedroom uh unit right now that is not occupied
pending hopeful approval here and he has some more work to do on it too um from when he bought
it but yeah so that would be a unit this is a four bedroom home here and then his hope is to
convert this space back here into one three bedroom unit that would be flush with the existing homes
on the block so counselor it's a total of four units it's three it'd be one one in this building
here and then one in the main house here thank you so mr council you initially wanted five
the rco spoke and you dropped it to three yes sir okay questions or comments from the virtual
audience here i see no hands at this time planning commission thank you sir david effecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single-family zoning at this location the applicant has not demonstrated that
a hardship exists that would require the construction of a third unit since two units
exist today the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the use variants
with a condition that the number be limited to two.
MI 2021-005-226-4734 North Street, I vote yes for two units.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes for two units only.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is for two units.
James Snell, my vote is yes for two units only.
Ishmael Shahid, for two units.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes for two units.
Thank you everyone.
MI 2021-005-231-4659 Rising Sun Avenue.
We have no exhibits.
This is first listing.
Is there anyone in the audience?
here i see no heads at this time mi 2021 005 231 46 59 rising sun avenue continuance must be tried
MI 2021-005-237-6959 Tulip Street, Justin Crick is the attorney. No letter as of yet from the
coordinating RCO Taconi Civic Association that we see. Chair, Mr. Crick is coming back in as a
penniless now. Mr. Crick, you've already been sworn. Yes, thank you. Could you identify your
client? Yes, the client is Catherine Salisbury. She is the proprietor of the business located at
the property. And has there been RCOs involved? Yes, we did meet with the RCO on March 22nd.
uh the the meeting was was not that heavily attended but it was our understanding that
they were preparing and would submit a letter of support to the board okay our vice chair has a
few questions for you and mr crick do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Everything but their letter
which is out of my hands but we have followed up with them to try to have them to do so. I was
under the impression they may have submitted it directly but if you're not in possession of it
I do not have one either at this time. Okay thank you you may proceed and share your screen. Thank
you all right um mr chair members of the board um i'm here today uh presenting an application
let's unpause i'm here today uh presenting an application for the property at 69 59 tulip
street in philadelphia pennsylvania the applicant is seeking to expand an already existing use of as
a daycare on the first floor with the expansion to now encompass the second and third floors
of the same building in an existing structure.
The refusal is that a daycare, this property is located is RSA 3 designation and therefore
the daycare is prohibited in the district.
Again, it has been approved by administrative permit in April of 2011 for the first floor
and we are currently, Ms. Salisbury is the recent proprietor of the daycare, seeks expansion
to allow for additional students and additional offerings to people of the neighborhood for
the daycare service onto the second and third floor. And as it indicates on the ZVA, on the
refusal, the daycare center at the first floor, and it was a club, a social club for the Knights
of columbus at the second and third floors in the in the recent past uh with at that time was given
a maximum of 23 children for geographic purposes the property is located on tulip street between
tyson and distant close to uh state road and and you know in the northeast and i'm just to give you
an idea the lot size of this property is approximately 11 300 square feet is a very large
property on the corner here with ample space outdoor for the children to play um and and you
know enjoy themselves outside uh the improvement size of the building is about 3592 square feet
and actually this picture better better represents the size of this property um some of the some of
the thoughts that we discussed with the neighborhood while they were not necessarily concerns
were how drop-off and pickup works.
And because Tulip Street has a sizable frontage on it,
there was no concern of the neighborhood
regarding any traffic in the increased use
of the second and third floors of the property.
The surrounding area is RSA 3 as well.
And just some exterior photos of the facade.
Again, the first floor is currently in use,
is a legal use since about 2011. And we are looking to just increase with upstairs and
is a legal use since about 2011.
and we are looking to just
downstairs. You can see some of the equipment on the outside used for recreational purposes.
So what we're seeking to do again, first floor use, interior photos,
seeking to expand same into
second floor which is not being used but for some storage of materials but would like to be
converted additional second floor it is space that has been updated uh and is ready for use
for this purpose um a rough sketch of the property by miss salisbury uh herself in order to save on
some of the costs of an architectural drawing but as you can see the open floor plans generally
speaking of these buildings uh would would very much uh be in line with the need for the type of
classroom slash daycare facility that she's looking for here's an exemplar copy of the lease
i'm sorry ed was that a question directed yeah now continue i'm sorry all right uh we have tax
clearance for miss salisbury and photographs of the posting on the property as well as actually
maybe i did receive this not too long ago um yes i guess on april 5th
we did receive a document um and in in essence if i recall i guess the the i know from the meeting
that they were in support but we do have down at the bottom that the zoning committee does support
the variance request the property has been used as a daycare for many years not a problem with
the neighborhood parking traffic and maintenance all occur without influence of neighbors uh there
was very little attendance at the meeting and um i apologize for for overlooking the fact that i
i may have received this and i did include it in the package uh in the beginning um so at this time
Ms. Salisbury also just should let you know that she is the owner-operator of other daycares.
She is licensed with the state at this facility and at her other facilities, and will maintain
compliance with all state requirements to have a facility such as this.
At this time, I'd like to call Ms. Salisbury to raise her hand to adopt my testimony.
Ms. Salisbury, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Hello, can you hear me?
State your name and spell.
Go ahead.
Catherine, K-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E, Salisbury, S-A-L-S-B-U-R-Y.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Ms. Salisbury, have you had an opportunity to hear my statements to the board today?
and were those statements true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt
my statements to the board as if they were your own testimony yes i thank you i have no further
questions for the for the witness and we would request that the board grant variance questions
from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission good morning david vecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the single family zoning at this location while the applicant has failed to show that a
hardship exists that would require the expansion of the daycare center the presence of that daycare
center would not have a negative impact on surrounding properties so the city planning
commission recommends the board grant the use of variance thank you mi 2021 005 237 69 59 tulip
street i vote yes our alternary my vote is yes excuse me mr chair we don't have the rco letter
we need oh i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry so yeah that's my mistake we're going to hold this vote
for a week mr correct let's see if we can get the letter and and whatever the day it is one way oh
we do have the rco letter yes i believe i believe that i did attach it i don't i was uh unfortunately
separately but it is part of my package it is page 21 of uh 21 and 22 of the package yeah he
showed her on the screen i'm sorry okay sorry i missed that no that's okay so my vote is yes
Thomas out
Thomas Howell, my vote is yes.
Thomas
My foot is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you Mr. Crick.
Thank you very much.
Anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called in this morning's list?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Thank you everyone.
See everyone at two o'clock.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Ismail Shahid, our board secretary.
he should be on shortly thomas hallman our board member president mr chairman
james snell our board member president mr chairman also here is our executive director
director tanya sunkett and our attorney hillary emerson our virtual format here i'm here now
Okay, thank you.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Tanya Sunkett at philo.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify
themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your
hand and star six to unmute. To enter appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question. And lastly, please note the question answer box is
not for testimony or comments. Any comments should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our executive director.
Let's look at continuances for this afternoon.
Number four. MI 2022-00658-3440 Messina Way. Number five. MI 2022-000659-3442 Messina Way.
Number eight, MI 2022-000-642-5312-18 Ridge Avenue.
And number nine, MI 2022-000-662-5637 North 10th Street.
All four of these cases will be continued.
Does anyone in the virtual audience have any comments relative to the cases?
Chair, we have Mr. DeMarco with his hand up.
Mr. DeMarco, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
I'm Mr. DeMarco.
State your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Good morning.
Excuse me.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Can you hear me okay?
We're okay.
Oh, great.
Yeah, Mr. DeMarco, D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
I only wanted to offer a comment that I would ask for the, we are on the agenda for the
next RCO meeting on June 7th, and I'm just going to ask for a hearing if possible after
That was my only comment.
We agree otherwise to the contingent.
You broke up a little bit there.
So why don't you do this?
Why don't you contact the office?
They'll take care of you.
Okay, that's fine.
I can do that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any other continuances requested?
chair we have jared klein mr klein you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair please
thank you good afternoon mr chair members of the board hi mr klein could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter certainly it's jared j-a-r-e-d last name's klein k-l-e-i-n
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do. What case? 6701 Callow Hill. It's MI 2021-004044.
Is that number 10 on the list? Number 10, yes. Number 10, yes. We need some additional time to
meet with the RCO. My client here is an educational institution. So with the school year being in
session, their attention was a little bit diverted. So we would appreciate one additional.
It's fine. We will continue that case. Thank you for calling in, sir.
we will continue that case thank you for calling in sir thank you very much mr chair any other
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
continuances chair i see no other heads at this time okay we're going to go to our add-on list
we have one add-on we're going to do this afternoon
MI 2021 004462 150 to 64 West Berks. This case was continued from April the 6th,
waiting on a letter from the council person. I have a letter I'm going to read into the record
from Councilwoman Quinones Sanchez.
The project is 150 to 64 Berks,
also 166 to 80 West Berks.
A brief description of the project is 152 dwelling units,
accessory off-street parking for 42 vehicles,
additional parking including van spaces for three electric parking spaces 77 first class
bike spaces here's the councilwoman's letter this applicant has met with the rco and has garnered
a letter of support which concludes includes a community benefits agreement our office is very
concern about these agreements because they don't give enough specificity for how the payments will
impact the neighbors. Additionally, we have worked for the past two years with six RCOs in the
community to address, correct, and update zoning and non-zoning related issues. We are seeing a
trend of developers that are requesting changes that violate the spirit of the planning. As for
our office, we have requested mandatory affordability in specific opportunity zones and the American
Street zones, and have obtained 10% affordability with almost all new housing developments.
Here again, this project did not include and refused to include affordability. While the
developer did try to accommodate our request for affordability concerning commercial spaces
For local residents, it is not enough given the scale and impact of the project.
Our office will officially oppose this project, this agreement.
We try to maintain a consistent policy that affordability is needed and only high-impact neighbors should be the beneficiaries of CBAs.
The introduction of cash payments in the future create problems that I believe the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment are not prepared to manage.
For this reason, we officially oppose this and future agreements in this format.
Diverse mixed income neighbors are created with intentional policies, not project-by-project agreements.
Our office has worked for 14 years with our residents and will advocate that their RCO honors our public process.
If you have any questions or need anything further information, please call Sloan Folks, 215-686-3985.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Councilwoman Maria D. Quinones Sanchez.
So, Project MI 2021-004-462, I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Case number one, MI-2022-000651-1031 Germantown Avenue.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
Letter of support from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association.
Chair, Mr. Whalen is coming back in now as a panelist.
Thank you.
hi mr whalen could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
certainly sean whalen s-e-a-n-w-h-a-l-e-n do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do could you identify your client and a relationship to the
property uh certainly my prop my client is the property owner and we submit
Certainly, my client is the property owner, and we submitted a deed, or is the equitable owner of the property, and we submitted a deed along with the project, and closing is upcoming.
Do you have his name?
Yes, it's an entity, and I'm looking for the entity name right now.
I knew you were going to ask me for it.
I'll just have my client text it to me. I'm sure he's okay. All right. So our vice chair has a
few questions for you. Hi, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of
proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have
a letter? Yes to all. Okay, you may proceed and share your screen. Thank you very much. Thank you.
So yes, I'm here on behalf of 1031 Germantown Avenue. I can't see what you guys can see, so
the property the entity is 1031 germantown avenue ocf llc that is the equitable owner of the
property and the property itself is 1031 germantown avenue hopefully right now you can see
a rendering okay perfect so this is a rendering of what the project will be townhomes i will come
back to it, but in an effort to put the cart as far in front of the horse as I can, here is a
support letter from NLNA. We met with them multiple times in a public meeting and also had numerous
conversations and communications with their boards and their members. They supported the project.
Here is a letter from Councilman Mark Squilla's office. They gave a letter of non-opposition
in support of an LNA and the project, and here is a letter of support, a petition of support,
notably from what I will show you. This yellow highlighted property is a large triangular
piece of property. This is 1031 Germantown, best known as the former swim club in Northern
and Liberties, and each one of these dots that you see along West Allen Street and Pollard
Street here are single-family residences that signed the petition of support here in
front of us.
So, again, to kind of back up now that I've gotten all the support out of the way, this
was an extremely collaborative process.
um i assume the board has already received notice but if you have not this project also
went through the cdr process uh it concluded yesterday so i'm sure the board does not have
a conclusion letter yet but um i'm not sure since i'm surprisingly case number one i don't know if
i've ever been case number one before the uh i'm not sure who the planning commission member is on
the call today but i'm sure that they can confirm that we completed cdr yesterday and again actually
Actually, the primary takeaway here, which was nice with CDR, was extremely appreciative of how collaborative planning commission staff, the developer, the near neighbors, and NLNA were in coming to kind of a resoundingly supported project here.
So, again, here's Germantown Avenue, West Allen Street, and Pollard is right here, and we are this large triangular portion of this block right there.
Just to give a little context, this is I-95 right here.
There's a large existing church right here.
This is the Piazza building on this side.
There's a large parking garage over here.
And you will see, I think, in the next slide.
So here's a slide, again, just gives a little more perspective.
This is the project right here.
this basically 100% built out commercial swim club, which had become quite a nuisance for the
neighborhood. We received a lot of support for getting rid of it and moving forward.
All of this will be demoed, and we will be building the townhomes that you saw in the
first instance. Here's a contextual rendering. These townhomes in orange show the 20 townhomes
that we have proposed.
It also shows this building right here is outlined. This is already approved, and our understanding is construction is imminent. This is immediately across the street, a 15-story tower, so obviously much higher than ours.
It also shows this building right here is outlined.
This is already approved.
and another large building being approved, was approved right here. And actually one of the
things that CDR specifically noticed yesterday, notified everyone of yesterday, was just the
number of large projects going in here. So we attempted to scale down. I think this project
gives you a good idea. These are the homes across the street on West Pollard. This is an apartment.
Both of those are taller than our buildings. And these are the other single family homes here
along West Allen. Notably, there are homes that are our height. There are homes in the middle
that are shorter than us. And actually, every home that is shorter than us on West Allen Street
signed that letter of petition that was submitted so that we do have support of everyone from that
end. This project, it's highlighted in purple, but it should be read CMX2 for the entire project.
so we did receive a number of refusals and i will go through them quickly the first one being that
for any cmx2 project you have to have 100 of your street frontage must have commercial use for the
first 30 feet in depth we are not providing commercial use on most of the project however
part of the support from NLNA required some corner use of commercial at the corner of Germantown and
West Allen. And I will point that out where we added that instead of just a single family house
there. This second refusal, while not incorrect, is actually premature. It says the proposed
parking is not accessed from a shared driveway alley or rear street this project will be a
planned unit development so while it is not yet a planned unit development because that has not
been recorded and cannot be recorded until after this board approves the variance this refusal
would go away because we would have a shared driveway servicing all 20 homes and so in that
instance, you would actually have a shared driveway. We also received refusals for where
required to have electric vehicle parking spaces and handicap accessible spaces. As I will show,
every single house has, every single house will have an EV charger placed into it. That's not
shown now, but it is part of the development plan. Each home proposed of the 20, 19 of the 20 homes
proposed. We'll have two-car parking, and each house is individually ADA accessible with an
elevator, and therefore every single home has the ability to have an ADA accessible or van
accessible space in its garage should that need arise. Then we have maximum height allowed is 38
feet. We do go up to 45 feet. However, what we've done with the community, and I'll show you
in these renderings, with NLNA is we actually squeezed the height on every block frontage
in working with NLNA to get their support. The reason why we go up is down here on West,
this is West Allen and this is Germantown. Down here on West Allen is the access, two-way access
to underground parking. The addition of underground parking based on the site and everything actually
pushes the whole property up. So we actually need that extra height in order to provide the
underground parking, which of course everyone knows the tenor of parking in this neighborhood
and in the city in general. We had resounding support for the implementation of sufficient
underground parking. That should be noted and it's specifically laid out in the revised plans
that we are actually on West Allen Street here. We are not exceeding 42.83 feet so we actually
shaved off about three feet of height on this street frontage. Each there's significant
topography changes all up and down West Allen and Germantown and so each house is individually
no taller than that 42.83 feet and in general is even shorter than that. Along Germantown
is, is even shorter than that. Along Germantown, there was no issue. All of the buildings near us
there was no issue.
and across the street were actually taller than us. So we did remain not to exceed 45 feet. Again,
each house is different. And then along Pollard Street, we're actually even just a little bit
lower at 42.042 feet. And I just call that out specifically because I know NLNA really keyed on
height and wanted us to make sure that that we limited that height. This corner right here is
where the commercial space will be. That will be a vacant commercial space to be filled in later.
What you see here is kind of a public access along this corner. You saw that this is a triangular
shaped parcel kind of awkwardly shaped so the triangular corner is carved out for public use.
One of the special aspects of this project, and certainly noticed by CDR, was the amount of public access space.
So these stairs would go up to the commercial space, but this whole area is public access and for public use.
And actually, so is this whole interior section.
So there's a full walking zone.
This is all right above the underground parking.
So over the underground parking is essentially all public walking zone. We have these large kind
of pedestal stairs going up into it. On the other side there's an ADA ramp for everyone to be able
to go ahead and walk. So here's the ADA accessibility. This is the ramp going down.
It's actually at the lowest point so that we could minimize the height and did everything
we could with the community to minimize that height for them and they were very happy with that.
So again, here's just a rendering of the interior. This is all public space, will be landscaped and established for public use and public walking.
And I think I just have one more kind of a nighttime scene.
so um you know not to uh not to belabor any issues and certainly we have uh you know overwhelming
support for the project um you know for a hardship or for a variance we need to show hardship uh that
it's not detrimental to the health safety and welfare and that it's the least minimum variance
i think i've already explained why we need that extra height and why that's the least variance
that we need in order to add that underground parking. Again, this is a changing neighborhood,
but we are trying to put in these townhomes, which will buffer the existing townhomes that
are across the street from us. We have EV chargers in every home. And it was specifically
noted by the Planning Commission yesterday at CDR that this project will be beneficial to
the individual neighbors. Now, the last piece of hardship that you see is we do have that one
refusal for CMX2 use. This is the one corner, right, where we added commercial use of the
community, thought it appropriate. Everything becomes residential as you go sort of east from
this project and this direction to the west, and north is more commercial. So that's where the
commercial space is. It was also presented to the community that essentially what you see here,
these three fingers right here and this large box have also been purchased by or will be purchased
by the same buyer but from a different seller. This piece will be consolidated with this larger
piece. When that is done, all of the project will be subject to the RSA 5 single-family
residential zoning, and therefore that would certainly take away the commercial impacts.
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have or just have my
clients adopt my testimony. Why don't you have your client adopt a testimony, Mr. Whelman?
Certainly. Ori Feibush should be on the call.
Mr. Feibush, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Feibush, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir. Ori Feibush, first name O-R-I, last name F as in Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Feibusch, you are here on behalf of 1031 Germantown Avenue OCF LLC, correct?
Yes, sir.
And that's the equitable owner of the property?
Yes, that's correct.
And you heard all of the testimony already presented in this case, correct?
And you heard all of the testimony already presented in this case, correct?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
Is there anything additional, not to be duplicative, but additional that you believe is relevant for this board to hear?
Not unless the board has specific questions for me.
Certainly. With that board, I would just offer Mr. Feibusch for any questions that you may have.
all right questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chair question or comments
from the virtual audience
here i see no heads at this time planning commission good afternoon mr chairman david
fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board this proposal completed
CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW IN MAY 2022, THE CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE NOT AN EXPRESSION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OR OPINION REGARDING
ZONING VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS PROPOSAL. THIS PROPERTY'S ZONING WAS CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 2 AND A NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONING MAP CHANGE IN 2014. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT REFLECT THE MINIMUM VARIANCES NEEDED
to allow the applicant to derive value from the land the applicant has failed to prove that a
hardship exists that will prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning
code the city planning commission recommends the board deny the use in dimensional variances
thank you um council is there your revised plans how many pages uh board it is uh one page proviso
with proviso form one page
zoning plan, revised
plan. Thank you.
000651
1031 Germantown Avenue.
I vote yes with
revised plan one page.
Stamp rate
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes
with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
We'll provide those.
My vote is yes.
We'll provide those.
Thank you, Mr. Whalen.
All right.
Thank you very much.
I hope you have a great day.
You too.
MI 2022.
005028, 224-30 West Topahokin Street.
attorney steve masters michael phillips leonard reuter
they're all coming back in this panelist chair thank you
mr masters spell your name for the court reporter please state it spell your name please
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
My name is Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S, from the law firm of JustLaws.
I'm here on behalf of the objectors who filed an appeal against the Department of License and Inspections.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you.
may it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R.
First name is L-E-O-N-A-R-D, Senior Attorney
for the City of Philadelphia. Right. And Mr. Phillips, could you
do the same? Sure. Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S
with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransburg, 1835 Market Street,
Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Here on behalf of the property owner, Topohokin Mansion, LLC.
Okay, for all three, do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I do.
So, I think we want to start to see where we stand.
So, Mr. Masters, we'll start with you.
Give me a sense of where this process is.
Sure, Mr. Chair, we are here to present our appeal against L&I.
we're focusing on some narrow issues that we've outlined in our response to the motion to limit
evidence and exclude irrelevant testimony that Mr. Bilby's counsel filed. And we are prepared to
proceed with the appeal before you today. Mr. Phillips, could you give me a sense of where
you are? Certainly. Right now, as detailed in my letter objecting to the evidence that was
proposed by Mr. Masters. We're here on one very narrow issue, whether or not the zoning permit that
Whether or not the zoning permit that was issued in the revised plan comply with the Commonwealth Court's order, which was to eliminate the parking on Pastorius and no additional curb cuts.
Those are the two issues.
One, there's no contention that there is any parking proposed in the zoning plan.
So this all becomes a matter of the language, no additional curb cuts.
and there's an existing driveway that's been there. It's not subject of the appeal.
And as we sit here today, there is one means of access to that driveway through a curb cut.
Now, there were additional curb cuts that were made during the period of time when the provisos
were not in effect. There are barriers up, blocking those. That's an enforcement issue
with L&I, as I'm sure Mr. Reuter will note. And we presently have a zoning application in right now
for the legalization of these parking spaces and to speak to the changes that have taken place over
the last five years in the neighborhood that we believe necessitates the hardship in legalizing
these parking spaces. It is our contention that the parking spaces are not part of the plan.
They're not permitted to be used right now. And for that reason, we will need relief from the
zoning board. So the sole matter that we're here for today is the location of the one curb cut
that provides ingress and egress to the property. There were two curb cuts at the time of the
application. There's one curb cut right now. Therefore, there's no additional curb cuts.
And this really just becomes a matter of enforcement. And this can all be gleaned from
the plan. And this is legal argument. There really is no need for testimony of fact witnesses as to
what the plan holds and whether it complies with the provisors that were reinstated by the
Commonwealth Court. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Just one minute. Mr. Reuter, could you give me a sense
of where you think we are? Sure. Generally, we agree with Mr. Phillips' rendition of what's
happening here uh we do believe that uh and we agree that the parking spaces that have curb cuts
along pastorius uh not the not the what we'll just call in shorthand the driveway but the the
parking spaces uh that as a result of the commonwealth court's opinion those are not lawful
i mean he says they have barricades i don't myself know that although i do have a couple
witnesses here that maybe could talk to that um so we we agree that those are in violation we don't
we don't have any disagreement with um uh mr master's clients about those spaces uh that is
our understanding and based upon what i get from the department of licenses and inspections is that
those are not currently being used for parking so i mean technically they can be you know you can
pave your front yard uh in some at least at this location there wouldn't be a prohibition on that
But the curb cuts will either have to be removed or legalized, which sounds like Mr. Phillips' client is going to attempt to legalize that, meaning this matter is going to go on for another seven years.
But that's a whole other issue.
Thank you. So as far as the use of the driveway goes, it's our contention. We understand Mr. Master's position and his client's position is that that can't be used for, you know, egress of the tenants and people who reside on the property.
I think that might be reading too much into what the proviso from 2017 meant, but even if that were true, that is primarily a matter of enforcement.
The existing curb cut for that driveway can remain, and that was part of what was allowed by the Commonwealth Court, Mr. Masters' issue, I think, with that really has more to do with who enters and exits on Tulpahawken.
because the other portion of the proviso was a curb cut on Topohokin only, which, again, was kind of ambiguous or even contradictory.
But that's, again, an enforcement matter.
So we don't think that there is anything invalid on the face of the permit that was issued based upon the plans that were submitted.
Now, if he's going to say that there's something wrong with the plans that were submitted, that's not for L&I. We take a plan that's stamped and sealed by the architect or engineer at face value. We don't go out and do our own measurements. That's simply not practical nor possible for the department to do.
On the base of the plans that were submitted in the application materials, the approval and the permit is fine.
Mr. Chair, I misunderstood your question to me in the beginning.
Mr. Chair, I misunderstood your question to me in the beginning.
I did not know that.
I did not know that we were doing opening arguments.
I thought we were doing...
No, no, no.
I don't think they...
Maybe went a little bit further, but the fact of the matter is I'm trying to get a sense
of where we stand.
Right.
What could we possibly accomplish this?
So I do want to give you more information on that because I was unreasonably brief in my
comments to you as trying to be concise.
um we we have two um our appeal is based on two issues that we filed in our application for
appeal one is that the plans that were submitted to lni on their face violate the court the
commonwealth court's july 2020 uh 2021 order because they in fact unlike what mr phillips
just told you, they have three curb cuts on the plans that they submitted in 2021, not one. They
still have the two existing curb cuts that were on the 2017 plan, and they have a third curb cut
that now extends the driveway. We also argued that the plans violated a stipulation that the
city of Philadelphia and the objectors entered into in the Commonwealth Court proceeding.
Mr. Phillips attempted to strike that stipulation from the Commonwealth Court's docket.
The Commonwealth Court denied his motion and relied on that stipulation to defer our petition for contempt and to say it was premature, that really what has to happen is that Mr. Bilby needs to put new plans to L&I.
they need to determine whether they comply with the court's order. And in this case,
L&I said that they did comply with the court's order, but we took exception to that because
they don't. And so we are now here before the zoning board on that issue. And we presented
two questions for the zoning board to resolve today, which is where the amended zoning plans
presented to L&I include a new curb cut labeled existing driveway, which did not exist when the
property was purchased and was illegally widened and moved from the previous location where the
driveway used to have a dog leg. Was L&I correct in finding that the plans complied with a zoning
proviso that says no additional curb cuts? And the second question is around the landscape buffer
that Mr. Billy now wants to put to block any tenant access coming in from Topalhawken Street
to go to their parking spots. Basically, there is a large curb cut on Topalhawken Street,
which historically has been used for ingress and egress to this property. He wants to put a
landscape buffer that will stop any tenant from being able to use Topalhawken Street to access
all the parking on the property. So that, we contend, is a violation of the city's stipulation,
which says that tenant access cannot come through Pastorius Street. It must come through
the other avenues of access to the property. And at this moment, the only access is off of
Tupperhawken Street if they don't come from Pastorius. We further argued that our expert
witness testimony is essential, as the zoning board has frequently ruled, because what we're
talking about here, Mr. Chair, is what do these plans actually say and whether the plans have an
additional cut cut or not. And we need expert testimony for that because that's not something
that a lay witness is competent to testify before the board. There is a, perhaps there's an LN
examiner here that Mr. Reuter has brought. We know that we've subpoenaed the Planning Commission
representative and representative of the streets department. Ah, Mr. Bednar is here. Yeah, so
they are obviously witnesses for the city, and we need to be able to have our witness to present
to meet our burden of proof to show that our appeal has merit. In addition, Mr. Bednar,
who we subpoenaed, was the witness who first offered the proviso, and his proviso
was specifically about ingress and egress issues. So his testimony is important for this board,
since many members of the board were not present at the 2017 hearing, to understand what the
testimony was at that time and what the intent of the board was. But interestingly, Mr. Chair,
Mr. Chair, the former attorney for Mr. Bill V, Cheryl Gaston, admitted in her argument to the Common Police Court before Judge Patrick in 2018 that there was a clear intent on the part of this zoning board to prohibit the extension of the driveway to Pastoria Street.
the former attorney for Mr. Bill v. Cheryl Gaff
and we will present that to you in her transcript so so so my understanding and our counsel's here
too and she can chime in for me my understanding we're here for one thing did l and i make a
mistake or not when they issued the permit that that's the only issue that that is the only thing
you're on and i think anybody who testifies has to testify to that absolutely did l and i make a
mistake if I could that is our intent uh Mr. Sheriff if I could say something I just want
to clarify something and and I don't even I have no idea whether the council would agree with me
on this but it's it's my position that the zoning board doesn't I mean despite how this is all being
characterized in the context of the commonwealth court's opinion uh the zoning board doesn't have
any authority to make a determination about whether the zoning permit meets the Commonwealth
Court's opinion one way or the other. What we do agree with is that the Commonwealth Court did
return everything back to the original 2017 approval and proviso, and we have the language
of the proviso. There's a slight disagreement about what the proviso actually means per se,
But that's the issue here is does the permit that was issued, the current zoning permit, does that current zoning permit conform with the 2017 approval and proviso, original proviso, because there were two, the original proviso of the zoning board from 2017?
I would rather not couch this in terms of whether or not the city or the parties or anybody is in compliance with the Commonwealth Court because this zoning board has no authority to make any determinations about what the Commonwealth Court said or didn't say.
we can all stipulate that the commonwealth courts essentially said everything goes back to the 2017
approval and proviso and what so again just so we can narrow the issue so what the board is just
the single question the board the mistake or the lack of mistake goes to is this permit consistent
with the 2017 approval and proviso original proviso uh so and that so that just to clarify
that so we would we hillary hillary do you want to talk get into this conversation yeah so i i
personally need a little bit of clarification here because the proviso that i read from the 2017
decision has different wording than what the what's in the court's opinion which has different
wording than what's in the stipulation so i just want to be clear as to i don't know if it would
be ellen i's position or what the parties have agreed on um is is the actual proviso at issue
in this case because that that is unclear to me at this time if if i could uh mr chair well i i
would have talked to mr mr ministers i will get to it go ahead leonard okay
oh no remember you're trying to talk or no that's okay michael go ahead yeah i just wanted to quote
from the commonwealth court order i could even pull it up but it it states it acknowledges that
the proviso says no parking on pastoria curb cut on tulpa hawkin only then the the court goes into
what was actually said at the hearing in the next sentence and this is for me is the most operative
sentence because there's no argument that where there's no parking allowed on pastoria but it
says accordingly there is no doubt that the zba's proviso was intended to prohibit additional curb
cuts on pastoria street with the word additional in bold that's part of the commonwealth court's
opinion so it is our position that the proviso prohibits parking along pastoria and additional
curb cuts on pastoria based on the commonwealth and that's and that's it so i could just
just a second mr master if i could just follow up i had previously indicated to the zoning board
and to ms emerson just as recently as the other day that we didn't believe that the commonwealth
Court actually clarified what the meaning of the proviso was. I would amend that statement a little
bit by saying, yes, the Commonwealth Court said what it said, which is exactly what Mr. Phillips
just repeated on the record here, which is exactly, you know, that the intention of the
zoning board in 2017 was to not allow additional curb cuts on Pastorius. The problem is, which the
Commonwealth Court did not address, not because they made a mistake, but because it wasn't before
them, but I think it is now being raised here, is what were the original, what
but I think it is now being raised here, is what were the existing curb cuts at the time
of the zoning board's case in 2017? And that's where the dispute is. And that's what curb cuts
existed and where were they? And that's what is not resolved. That's the challenge, presumably,
that's being raised by Mr. Masters. And what we would say for the city's part is,
again we go by the application and plans that are submitted to the city the plans that were
submitted to the city showed on the plans that were submitted to us say existing curb cut existing
curb existing curb cut that's signed and sealed by an engine by an architect we take that at face
value excuse me council excuse me council excuse me council mr chairman is it possible is it possible
to have a site plan shown on screen uh i have i have all of those in my exhibits that i could
that i could easily do um and and for sure i i just did wanted to um before i did that mr hellman if
it's okay i wanted to go through the in the commonwealth court um once they made their ruling
um to reinstate the proviso um we brought a petition for contempt against mr bilby
and in that proceeding um the commonwealth court asked us to file status reports and so the status
reports that were filed between um the objectors um mr bilby and and the city do um do talk in
terms of what the provisos uh what what we could agree on and what we didn't agree on or what the
provisos um mean and the city and and the objectors uh came to an agreement uh for the meaning of the
provisos that that were made binding on the department of licenses and inspections so i think
it's important for the for the board to see that in addition to to looking at the at the drawings
But that's also the purpose that our expert witness, Nancy Templeton, is here to give her opinion and to walk us through not only what the plans show, but the testimony and the testimony of the witnesses and the comments made by the chair of the zoning board at the time and the members of the zoning board are very, we submit they're very critical to help you understand
Why it was that the zoning board, in their initial proviso, said that there would be no ingress and egress from Pastorius.
They said no curb cuts on Pastorius, only curb cuts on Topahawken.
And then at the very end of the hearing, after the vote was taken, the attorney for Mr. Billy at the time said, well, you understand there's a curb cut already on Pastorius.
She said there was one curb cut, but apparently there were two.
And then the chair, Mr. DiCicco, said, well, no additional curb cuts. But there literally was no conversation, no testimony, no deliberation up until the very last moment of that hearing about anything about any curb cuts on Pastorius.
So the context of it is important, and we understand why Ms. Emerson is somewhat perplexed, because this board attempted to correct the ambiguities in subsequent votes, but all of those votes were determined to be invalid because the zoning board didn't provide for another hearing where all the parties could come and have due process.
they did a revote without a hearing um we do submit though that if you look at what they said
in the revote what this board said in 2017 in the revote in november you will you will see
that it's consistent with what the intent was of this board all along which excuse me council
excuse me council i i understand but it would be helpful to all of us for a site plan sure
So while we're pulling it up, can I just say one thing?
Wait a minute.
Hillary?
Hillary?
So let me – I'm not quite getting the answer that I need to understand because I think it's challenging to discuss what the meaning of the proviso is if we don't know what the exact wording of it is.
And I think I should reword my question and say, what does L&I recognize as the proviso in this case for which it reviewed the plans against?
Because, like I mentioned, there are three versions of the proviso out there, and I am not sure which one L&I is functioning with in terms of reviewing the plans.
So, L&I is referring to the actual provider, so the
L&I is referring to the actual – so what was said on the record is very interesting and all, but what matters is what was actually put in the decision of L&I.
So in the decision of L&I – I mean in the decision of the zoning board, sorry.
The decision of the zoning board is, again, no additional curb cuts on Pastorius, curb cut on Topohokan only.
um so it was again so we we believe that the and again i think the board wants to see a copy of
the site plan for the current zoning permit because it's our position that that is the only well
i have it but i wanted to but the city entered into a stipulation saying that the proviso
was and i have it up on the screen now immaterial no parking on pastoria street parking curb cut on
top of hawkins street only no additional curb cuts on pastoria so the word parking um concerning the
top of hawkins street is a point of contention where mr phillips believes that the word parking
doesn't belong there but when we look when we look later at the actual transcript from the zoning
board they said parking curb cut on top of hawkins street only they didn't say curb cut
again the transcript's not relevant what matters is what was that we're not i'm not walking away
from this i think the permit that we issued comports with this but i do believe that ms
emerson wants to see a copy of the current site plan so mr masters you can either put that up
all right so you want the current site plan from 2021 that was submitted to lni
yes and i believe the the streets plan is also relevant and if i could just state one thing well
the streets plan actually is is pre it predates the commonwealth court's decision and it includes
It's parking along Pistorius, and it has all the curb cuts.
I have not cut you off.
Gentlemen, one at a time.
We have an October 2021 streets plan that was approved.
I want to reiterate that there were curb cuts.
There was proposal for everywhere where you see paver patio, there were proposals for curb cuts and parking there.
That's not allowed now under the terms of the Commonwealth Court's order.
So, therefore, the only curb cut that would be permitted is the curb cut to provide access to the existing driveway.
That's the only purpose for any curb cut on Pastorius right now.
There would be one curb cut that provides access to this existing driveway.
So, therefore, if there's an issue with enforcement or what is shown, again, the only curb cut that provides any functional purpose is the curb cut that provides access to the existing driveway.
So, I do not know, unless Mr. Masters' issue really is just with a technicality, why, you know, we're here over one legal driveway.
We're here to provide access, because otherwise, Mr.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, everybody, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Thanks, Tanya.
Mr. Phillips, finish up.
I was just going to say, the only purpose for any curb cut on Pastorius right now, since
there can be no parking there, is to provide access to the existing driveway.
That is the only functional curb cut that exists, and that's the only functional curb
cut that is proposed.
Well, here is the plans that were submitted to L&I where they show three curb cuts. We have
an existing curb cut that is right here with the angles of a curb cut. And then there's the
second existing curb cut, which is right here. These are the two curb cuts that also appear
on the 2017 plan. And this is the third curb cut. It's not labeled a curb cut,
it's labeled existing driveway to remain and it shows uh the curb cuts uh what which i'm showing
in with my uh with my cursor um we have uh when you look at the photos um you'll you'll see that
in 2017 when when this case first came before the zoning board there was actually no curb cut
that was existing here there was a utility pole that was in the middle of this and the driveway
is clearly an existing driveway but it as you traveled on this driveway towards pastoria street
you then once you once you went past these buildings you did a dog leg and you came out
the existing curb cut here this curb cut did not exist in 2017 and that is why it was an error
of for for lni to approve this because these two curb cuts remain on the plans and this is a third
additional one um there was no indication on the plan that these curb cuts would be would be removed
would be removed in fact if they wanted to remove it they would have done on the plan what they did
in fact if they wanted to remove it they would have done on the plan what they did with all of
with all of the additional curb cuts that they were putting here and they would have removed
them and they would have had a solid curb restored for the entire length um but they didn't they they
they were those curb cuts remained and they have this one as an additional one but in addition we
now have the landscape buffer that's in this section which which perhaps which prohibits
any access from Topohokin into the property beyond these three parking spots, which is for
Mr. Bilby himself and his family. Every other parking spot for all the tenants is on the other
side of the landscape buffer that is not accessible from Topohokin. So those are the two issues that
we're here about. So excuse me, Councillor, so what are you objecting to?
This curb cut here is an additional curb cut that violates the zoning board's proviso.
This landscape buffer violates the zoning board's proviso because the proviso says parking curb cut on Top of Hawkins Street only, and that we will introduce testimony to show,
and also the city has agreed in the stipulation that that means that that the the ingress and
egress for parking purposes on this property um must come from topo hawkins street and the only
uh the only ingress and egress that would be allowed from any of the existing to existing
curb cuts on pastorius would be for temporary purposes service vehicles emergency vehicles
that's what the zoning board uh when when you revoted in november 1st of 2017 that's that was
put onto the onto the notice of decision so but the clear intent was to not only not have parking
along pastoreas but to not have traffic along pastoreas so so here here's my here's where i'm
missing it it's not about the zoning board it's about l and i right well no the zoning board is
the only body that can review an error that l and i makes l and i made a mistake and they should
But I mean, we haven't got to that point that they made a mistake is what I'm saying, right? I thought this was to say, did they make a mistake or not?
They granted the permit. They granted the new zoning permit. And we say that that was in violation of the proviso. And the zoning code has two provisions that tell L&I that if there's an existing proviso that in any way restricts anything on a property, L&I has no authority to disregard that proviso and to approve a zoning plan that's not in compliance with it.
So the only one who can enforce that is, at this stage, you, as the zoning board, you get the appeal that we brought from L&I, and you say to L&I, you made a mistake, you should have issued a refusal.
But that's what we're trying to get to. Leonard, how do you respond to this?
Well, again, I agree that that's what the zoning board is here to determine, is whether or not L&I made a mistake. But Mr. Masters is saying L&I made a mistake because his position is that L&I made a mistake primarily because this – well, you can't see where my cursor is, but where it says existing driveway to remain, he's saying we made a mistake because that was not an existing driveway.
in curb cut but it's what's on the plan again the plans examiner doesn't go out and do a site
inspection we would never get through the thousands upon thousands of zoning plans that
are submitted to the city we accept this at face value if mr masters is saying the plan that was
submitted to the city is inaccurate that's fine he can make that argument and we agree this board
can make a determination about whether that plan was inaccurate and if that's the case then this
board can say that the zoning permit could be revoked. But I just want to make it clear
that it's not a mistake that L&I made if that's the case. It's a mistake or an error in the plan
that was submitted. It may amount to the same thing ultimately, but that's why I believe
that testimony is not really relevant here because this is the plan. Well, not this. This is the old
plan i don't know why this is up well this is up this is a land because this shows that in this
in the extension of the driveway it shows it's a new curb cut for the driveway because there was
a landscaped buffer that was here and there was a utility pole and where the existing curb cuts
were were here and here which are which remain on the new plan but this is the 2017 plan that
clearly shows that this was part of a new curb cut, as were all of these other curb cuts along
Pastorius. Right. And I think, can I pull up just the streets approved plan from October 2021 that
corresponds? Because I think it'll add a lot of color to this and really. Is it this one? Because
Is it this one? Because this one is the one that we received from Mr. Montanez, sorry, with the photos.
this one is the one that we received.
No, that's not it, because that's the one that proposed the parking.
This streets plan, which is stamped October 18, 2021, by Benjamin Barron, does not propose, this is without the parking proposed.
and i think it really will cut to um i'm sorry yes could you please take down yours
thank you you can proceed mr phillips okay thank you
okay so this is the streets plan from 2021 and as you will see it says paver patio
paver patio paver patio there's only one curb cut that so by the language of no additional
curb cuts, there's no dispute that there were two curb cuts at the time. And this streets plan,
again, proposes one curb cut to access the driveway. Now, whether that curb cut that was
over here needed to be modified or there were discussions with streets department of how
to best for safety and access purposes, this driveway and curb cut would function and interact
is a separate issue from whether we have additional curb cuts.
The only purpose for additional curb cuts previously
was to provide access to parking
because that's all a curb cut does.
It provides access through the sidewalk for parking.
That is not proposed here.
It is only proposed to happen on the existing driveway.
So there's one curb cut that functions at the property.
At the time, there were two.
We're at one.
two does not one is not an additional curb cut to two and that's where we are so mr chair this is
not the zoning site plan that was submitted to lni this is submitted um later to actually perform
the work of creating the curb cuts to the streets department the zoning site master
Mr. Masters, give me the floor for a minute.
Hillary?
Hillary?
Yes, I'm here.
Approach, ask Leonard the question.
So, Leonard, so we're trying to figure out what, if this is something,
if there's allegations that the plans do not accurately reflect the conditions or the proposed
conditions is this something that should be sent back to l and i for review first rather than the
board making a decision Leonard you're muted question is uh you know are the were the plans
that were submitted to ellen i accurate or inaccurate i i do actually believe that this
board has the authority to determine whether the plans that were submitted uh for this current
permit were accurate or inaccurate that'd be number one if you deserve to determine that
they're inaccurate then i do believe that you could uh remand the you know say that well
basically i think you could just grant the appeal um uh excuse me counselor excuse me counselor
how can this board determine if the plans was accurate or inaccurate by hearing the testimony
of the witnesses that you know the parties would have you know testify about it i mean presumably
but we don't hear from the architect who did decide plan well i don't know if he's here or
not he might be here i mean but but again but the second question is if the plans were accurate
is the use of the curb cuts. I mean, this is Mr. Mast. I'm not supporting his argument,
but his argument presumably is whether the plans are accurate or inaccurate is the current use of
those curb cuts in compliance with the 2017 approval and proviso. And again, I think that's
something that this board has the authority to determine. We've never argued that the board can't
hear this case we're just simply saying you know were the plans that were submitted accurate
that's not a question that l and i determines uh we you know the architect puts their name on
the plans and seals them which is essentially a certification that as far as the architect's
concerned they are accurate so we accept that at face value we don't go out and do our own
site inspection every time somebody submits a permit application that's not possible
uh this and then the second question is where so that that question the city's is like neutral
And then the second question is where, so that question.
if the plans weren't accurate we don't know that's up to somebody else to decide if the
but what is shown on the plans on the face of the plans that were submitted the permit is okay
it's fine because a lot of the issues that mr master's clients are raising with respect to the
use of the curb cuts and stuff it's far too nuanced i mean if they're for parking their
curb cuts, whether they were parking or not parking or whatever, the permit's okay. If people
are using the curb cuts to do something other than park or drive or whatever, and if there's
some way that an inspector can even make that determination, then presumably that just becomes
a code enforcement issue. It's not a question of the permit itself being bad. It's just a question
of are they using the property in a way that is not permitted? So that's an enforcement issue.
So, you know, on that question, we do disagree.
Like the barrier thing that was put in the, actually, the northern part of the parcel, because some of the plans, for whatever reason, are south to north and not north to south.
The one closer to Tulpahawken, I mean, that's, there's no, there's nothing, no reason whatsoever where the city would or could have refused the application on that basis because it blocks the Tulpahawken.
People coming in from Topofahawken can't get to the parking spaces closer in the middle of the property.
I get that's what the argument is.
And therefore, because they can't use that for parking, that's a violation.
Well, I mean, there are three spaces that they can access.
So that's not really, and again, that's indisputable.
So, again, it's not up to a plans examiner or to L&I at the time of the permit being issued or reviewed to make a determination about, gee, are these guys really going to – I mean, what if everybody just goes there and drives and speeds and does donuts?
That's not – you know, it's like it's not – we're not anticipating what behavior or driving behaviors or parking behaviors people are actually going to engage in.
That's just not something that we can do at this stage.
So, you know, again, I think the only real issue is were the plans accurate?
What were the curb cuts that existed back in 2017?
Excuse me, Counselor, is the architect here as a witness?
Mr. Masters, let me ask the question.
Mr. Masters, do you have one witness that could testify to the plans that went that Ellen and I were wrong?
Yes, my expert witness.
Could you put that expert witness on the list?
I would object to the relevance of an expert testifying as to another person's plans to state whether or not those plans are accurate.
What I'm trying to do is, were the right plans sent over? That's period.
Well, Mr. Chair, what we're saying is that if the zoning plans that were submitted that we've all looked at show three curb cuts,
And if Mr. Phillips says that right now they've only asked to build one curb cut along the driveway, he still is authorized to build two more where the existing curb cuts are, and that means that the plans are not in compliance with the provisos.
Anyone can have a zoning plan, site plan that allows multiple changes to a property and then their building plans can go in stages and they can choose to only build or implement a portion of what they've been authorized to do by their zoning permit.
What we're here to do is look at the zoning permit and not at the building permit, which is where the streets department plans are.
and this board doesn't even review the streets department's actions directly. That's for a
different board of license and inspection review. So we're here to review the zoning code, and the
zoning code requires the zoning site plan to be in compliance with the proviso. So my expert witness
will be able to address that but we couldn't speak to to um why why um why it's why the the
those curb cuts are there and and seeking to be authorized for a zoning permit if in the if in
somewhere in their um in their heart or soul they were they were deciding not to build curb cuts
there we don't we don't have information about that we just know that hillary good yeah no mr
Chair, I just want to try and narrow this just a little bit. So Mr. Masters, are you contending
there's an error in the plans or is your only contention that they do not comply with the
proviso? Yes, we have no, we don't know anything about an error in the plans. Our issue is that
they violate the proviso. Okay, so that issue is off the table. So really your issue is that they
that they violate the proviso so then i guess i'm still coming back to to my original question which
violate the proviso. So then I guess I'm still coming back to my original question.
is what proviso language and and maybe um mr reuter you have um an examiner here that can
testify to this what proviso language um was was used to assess whether the plan was in was in
compliance with the zoning board's decision because i'm still unclear at that point and there was a
variance between the three different versions of the language that was used. So I want to be
clear that we're all talking, if we're going to say that, if the argument is going to be whether
or not the proviso was violated by the issuance of this permit, then we need to be clear exactly
what proviso we're talking about, because I am still not clear. Yeah, if I may, the Dowd's
decision, which we quoted extensively in our memo to the zoning board, stands for it's a case that
deals with an appeal against L&I for a property where there was a proviso and then there was a
change, a remapping of the property. And then a new zoning application came in. L&I decided that
the proviso didn't apply anymore because of remapping. And the Commonwealth Court said that
it was wrong of the zoning board to give deference to L&I to basically to say that like well L&I
must have known something as to why they made this decision and we're going to defer to them
they said that the zoning board needs to do its own independent look at whether this zoning plan
that was submitted to L&I complies with the proviso or not and so I would respectfully
submit that whether or not the LNI examiner believed that they had, they probably acted
in good faith, they probably believed they were doing the right thing, but that's really of no
moment to this board because the court has said that it's wrong to give any kind of deference to
the LNI examiner, that you as the board need to sit and adjudicate and look at the plans and say,
does this comply with your proviso or not? That's what the court has instructed. And they reversed
the common police court, which basically upheld the zoning board that said, it's really not for
us to make a call on this. We're just going to go with whatever L&I said, because they must have
known what they were doing. And the commonwealth court said, that's wrong. You need to do your own
independent inquiry. That's pretty much not anything that the Dowd case was about,
but I don't want to get into that right now. I mean, that was my case involved in that case.
Let me, here's the thing. We have a new attorney. I would appreciate if everybody put on a piece
of paper what their positions are. We can't go on like this. Well, I think, I mean, to be fair,
I think that's been done a couple of times already in this case. Again, the proviso,
So everybody, I think, agrees that the proviso at issue is the first proviso that was put forth in the zoning board's actual decision letter, the first one.
The subsequent ones are not relevant.
They were not followed.
The court explicitly threw those out.
So what matters is the language in the original decision letter from 2017, the first, really the only.
Can I just read what I'm seeing into the record from, you know, this is, and Leonard, if I have this wrong, please let me know, but I'm taking this, you know, from L&I's website on their decision history.
But this is how that provides the reads from 2017. Entry, curb cut from four emergency vehicles only, no ingress slash egress from Pastorius, existing curb cut to be removed or physical barrier erected.
that's the original language that's not the original language that's the revote on november
1st yeah and that was okay and that was struck down by the commonwealth court okay that's listed
as the original hearing date well that's too bad um so okay well then i need the language
yeah no of course uh i'm trying to find it real quick real quick being relative uh well we have
it in in the stipulation well but we have it in the commonwealth court july order they directly
cite from it and that's that's the language i spoke to earlier where then they say what does
that language no curb cut mean they say it's clear it's intended to mean no additional curb cuts
that's the commonwealth court's decision that's based on whether or not they were going to strike
down or approve the provisos so it's our position that no parking on pastorius no additional curb
cuts on uh pastorious and that's and that's where things stand and and parking curb cut
And parking curb cut on Tupperhawken only. The Commonwealth Court did issue, did write certain things in their opinion, but we have to look at what the transcript of the ZBA says because they were simply reinstating the ZBA's proviso.
on tupperhawken only that's that's
The Commonwealth Court wasn't creating their own proviso, and they weren't modifying the ZBA proviso. They simply said, we want to clearly state what it is that the ZBA voted on. And when you look at the ZBA transcript, which I will see here.
Hold on one second. Leonard, did you find the original language?
again the original language that i'm looking at is the language that's in the transcript i'm asking
mr phillips do you have the original decision letter i mean i have it somewhere but it's going
to take me half an hour to pull it up i i have i have the the transcript right i don't i don't want
the transcript i want the actual decision the actual notice is what oh the notice of decision
that one that one was was was was it didn't have concurrence of three votes um all right okay and
and so and so the zoning board decided that that wasn't valid okay so this is this is the legitimate
this is this is the transcript then so right that's right i mean this has been going on since
2017. but i have the language in the commonwealth court's decision right here they they directly
quote what the provides well i think this is the accurate here it is no parking on pastoria street
parking curb cut on top of hawkins street only that was mr de chico mr plaza yes with provisor
Mr. Holloman, yes, book proviso, Ms. Gaston said, can I be excused? Then she said, can we have
revised plans? And then she said, you're going to have to, okay, then do you do understand the part
of this that there was already a curb cut on Pastorius, you're saying, and then Mr. Chico
said no additional curb cuts on Pastorius. And that concluded the hearing. So this Commonwealth
court said it was no parking on pastoria street parking curb cut on top of hawkins street only
and no additional curb cuts on pastoria they added that that the the bottom here they added
that as the third sentence so those were the three the three phrases that were considered to be the
the the proviso mr chairman can i make a suggestion please right is it possible that
go back and listen to the tapes because a lot of us were not there
and please send us the tapes out for this weekend hillary
because we can't make it
I totally agree
there won't be a recording these hearings were not recorded at that time
the transcript's all you have but again
I don't think respectfully I don't think that we can do that here
That is exactly the whole case that went to the Commonwealth Court, was what did the zoning board mean? What was the actual proviso that the board issued? And, you know, again...
Excuse me, Counselor. We just read the ZPA transcript, so shouldn't we just follow that?
right and but we would also agree with mr phillips that the commonwealth court has said
that the intention of the board was to not allow additional curb cuts and pastorius we all i think
we all agree right ultimately there are no additional curb cuts on pastorius so the issue
is at least from my position the city's position is what were the original curb cuts what curb
cuts existed at the time the permit application in 2017 was submitted. That's it.
Well, I think, Mr. Count, excuse me, excuse me, Count. I think we should just follow the ZBA
transcript and not what the courts added.
Well, we do have the language of the Commonwealth Court decision that came down. It's in exhibit...
Exhibit 11, which is the decision on the stipulation, Mr. Phillips asked the stipulation to be stricken, and the Commonwealth Court said in their footnote on page 8,
moreover in a stipulation filed by petitioners and the city on november 5th 2021 those parties
stipulated that the city will instruct this department of licenses and inspections to require
that any zoning or building plans submitted by respondent restrict access through any remaining
curb cuts along pastoria street for the use of service delivery and emergency vehicles only
This reinforces our belief that LNI is the entity that should be addressing any current
This reinforces our belief that LNI is the entity that should be addressing any current zoning violations at the property.
Respondents, January 10th, 2022, application to strike stipulation, which seeks to strike the stipulation from the record, is denied.
um so in in that in their motion to strike the stipulation mr phillips argued that that adding
this language in the stipulation was so similar to the november 1st uh decision that had been
ruled invalid because of procedural reasons that it that it shouldn't be applied and the
commonwealth court disagreed and and did denied his motion and basically said that this stipulation
is valid um so this situation should guide should guide this board excuse me mr chairman
in the interest of time can we uh either call for a vote or hold it for another hearing
i i think where ismael was i think we have to hold it for another hearing i mean i i think
we got to get together as a group and figure out what this means and where we want to be and just
get it done. Thank you. So we're going to call for another hearing. We'll let you know
when that is. And then by then, we'll be better prepared to have a sense where we're going
and we're going to get it done the next time. And we're just not going to keep going around
and around and around. Hi, Chair. This is Tanya. Yes. May I respectfully request that
this be a special let's speak absolutely absolutely thank you chair and mr sheriff this could be done
expeditiously because mr phillips claims that he has a new application to basically vacate the
proviso from the zba which is a very high standard for him to do um but um since that is is pending
before lni right now and and will be presumably receiving a refusal um in in a short time he then
will be taking an appeal to this board on that we would like this board to have clarified and decided
on the contours of the proviso prior to that i i will i will talk to tanya with it and as usual
we'll try to do the best we can with dates so yeah and and just to piggyback on to what
Mr. Masters said, I mean, it would be our position that, I mean, if the court grants
the variances that we're seeking, I mean, if the board does, then all of this
is moot. So, you know, we're going to be on a pretty,
you know, they're going to be pretty close to each other probably in terms of timing, but if the board
grants the variances, everything that we're talking about here is moot. And also, I do have the original
zoning notice of decision that I can send Ms. Emerson that does state
no parking on Pastoria, curb cut on Topahawk and only. So I can send that
thank you thank you all very much but we have to move on okay i would just ask that you that this
did not be set for may i will be out of the country for the rest of the month
so um it has to be in june or or thereafter i i have i'm going to be out of the country in the
middle of june um i'm sorry i'm sorry we'll figure it out okay thank you all we'll look at that we'll
take care of that. We have to move on. Thank you, everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you've all put a lot
of time in this.
Because we'll be out of the country.
Right, Bill?
Jesus Christ. For the rest
of the summer. MI 2020
001535
East Somerset Street.
Southport
Richmond
Civic Association, Lender of Support.
Daniel McElhatt, attorney.
Air Daniel McElhatton is coming back in as a panelist now.
Mr. McElhatton, state your name and spell for a court reporter, please, sir.
Yes, Daniel, B-A-N-I-E-L-P McElhatton, M-C, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chair.
And who is your client, and what's the relationship to the property?
The owner of the property is Elton Enterprises, LLC, and the managing member of that is Brett Brand, B-R-A-N-D, and he owns both this parcel and an adjacent parcel where his business, Brand Enterprises, is located.
He is on the call today.
Thank you.
Our vice chair, Carol Tenere, has just a few questions.
Hi, Mr. McElhatton. Do you agree to wait for reading the refusal in situate with that person?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you...
RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, all of those have been submitted. We met with the RCO and we
received a letter of support, unanimous letter of support from the RCO, the Southport Richmond
Civic Association. That's great. You may proceed and share your screen. While I'm trying to do that,
But I was wondering, Mr. Chair, whether, as an attorney, I can get CLE credits for the last hour that I spent.
I mean, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that you'd get credits for that.
Why not?
I am attempting to share my screen, if you'll give me just a moment.
While that's coming up, this is a parcel that is at the intersection of Somerset and Salmon Street in Port Richmond.
It is in the shadow of I-95, and it is a building that is two stories high, and it is basically two widths wide, and it is currently vacant because it has been purchased by Mr. Brandt, and it's in the process of being renovated.
And you'll see it on the screen now, I hope, on the right-hand side of the upper building, of the upper panel.
It is this building right here that has two widths, and it's two stories high.
You'll see I-95 on the left-hand side here.
And what Mr. Brand is attempting to do and proposing is to convert the first floor into one apartment with two bedrooms and the second floor into one apartment with two bedrooms.
These have been vacant for quite some time.
This is the side view of it down below that.
And you can see the other views of the parcel.
He has attempted to and has started to make the interior renovations, which you can see on these slides here.
This is an addition to the community, which I think is very appropriate.
The community was very excited about having this work done and to make it conform with the rest of the community.
You'll see where it is in relation to 95.
So part of our hardship is that selling a single-family home at this location is extraordinarily difficult
because of the proximity of I-95 and all of the work that has been done on Richmond Street and
will continue to be done for quite some time. There is parking in the rear of the building.
There will be an eight-foot, no, there is not parking. There's parking on the street, but
the rear will have an eight-and-a-half-foot rear yard, and that rear yard goes into Mr.
Brandt's property, which is Brandt Imaging, they cover motor vehicles with plastic coverings,
and you see them all over the place. This is not a complex request. This is a request that is
consistent with the uses in the neighborhood and for all of the other properties. There's
residential property across the street. It is one that is proper for the general area of Somerset
and Simon Street, and we would request your favorable consideration for the variance.
Mr. Brandt, are you on? Can we add Mr. Brandt to the panel?
Mr. Brandt, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Brandt.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Sir, it is Brett Brandt, B-R-E-T-T, B-R-A-N-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chair.
Proceed.
Brett, you've heard me summarize what your application is to convert this building,
which is rather darlick at this point, into two separate apartments, two bedrooms each.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And would you describe where your business is in relationship to this property?
So my business is just south of this building down Salmon Street, which is a semi-dead-end street.
And we have a single-story warehouse.
And then there is a vacant piece of land in between.
And then this property in question.
and how long have you had your business at that location about three i think we've owned
uh these parcels for about four years we renovated the warehouse to move in there and
we've been operating out of here for about four about three years excuse me council
excuse me council yes do you have a site plan
Thank you.
i think i put that up there now thank you and mr brand you've heard me summarize the testimony
um that you would we would present we have presented you adopt my testimony as your own
that is correct questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments
from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time chair planning commission good afternoon
david vecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location the applicant
has failed to show that a hardship exists that would prevent the property from being used in
conformance with the zoning code the city planning commission recommends the board denied the
variance. Thank you. MI 2020, 001535, 2724 East Somerset Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, Counselor.
Mr. Chair, that will complete my business. May I be excused, sir?
Absolutely. Thank you. Good to see you, sir.
M-I-2020-000657-4154 North 7th Street.
Joseph Vaccaro is the attorney, letter of opposition from Nuevo Esperanza Housing and Development Corp., RCO.
Mr. Vaccaro is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just wanted to note for the record that I did receive a tax clearance on this property since the notes that I sent you.
So the case can be voted today.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Vaccaro, state your name, please.
Good afternoon.
And spell for the court reporter.
Good afternoon. My name is attorney Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, attorney for the applicant, Dana Santana.
To my left is her husband, who is physically present with me, Giovanni Figueroa.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you tell me the relationship these two people have with the property?
Are they the owners?
Anna Santana is the owner of the property, and Mr. Figueroa is her husband.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you also emailed the exhibit packet in with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Thank you.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Sure. Insofar as the submission of the tax clearance certificate, I was able to submit the tax clearance certificate today, and I never received a letter from the RCO meeting, which, according to my records, took place on July 20th of last year.
But if the board has one, then the board has the letter.
Hillary, we do have a letter, right?
yes i um mr vicar i can send that to you momentarily okay much appreciated thank you
because uh because uh again here for the record um before i was retained my client had met with
my esperanza rco uh and there was a letter of opposition and then after that uh after that
event then i i was retained so i don't know uh if if the board has a more up-to-date letter or the
original letter from 2019 or 2018. So that being said, I'll share my screen.
Where's that button to share the screen?
On the bottom, the green.
All right. So this is an application to permit.
Okay. Could you share it for us, please?
This is an application to permit a duplex, one apartment on each floor. Here's a photograph
of the outside when I put up the poster.
I apologize, I shouldn't have done that.
Here's the photograph of the zoning poster.
I keep, I apologize.
I apologize. We have the refusal, we have the summary meeting form from the prior meeting with
the RCO, the application for appeal, the 7th Street, the deed to the property on 7th Street,
and again this is a property consisting of... Mr. Vaccaro, can you show this what you're
talking about? I mean, we're not having anything here. Oh, can you see this now? Yes. Okay.
Technology. Okay. Now we know what it is. Okay. I'm showing the board a comparison.
I'm showing the board a comparison of another property on the block, which was granted this
variance. The address of that property is 4163 North 7th Street, which I have X'd out the
property in question, Ms. Santana's property with the X and the property 4163 is one, two,
three properties across the street where such a variance was also granted. This is a property
that consists of 1,174 square feet of improvements. One apartment would be on the first floor,
one apartment on the second floor, each apartment having its own kitchen, its own living room,
and its own bedroom. There's also a basement in the building which would be used for storage
and laundry as may be appropriate. If I may close this one out,
I don't know why it keeps stopping the share screen. Let's see if there's any other documents
I want to show. Did you do your mailings? Yes, I did. I did the mailings to the, to the community
in advance of 10, 10 days before our, our meeting on July 20th with Moira Esperanza.
Other than that, we, Mr. Figueroa speaks very little English, so he would adopt if he spoke English, the presentation that I had made.
If there's any other questions from the board.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just want to clarify, the letter that we had received was the one in Mr. Vicarra's packet, which was from 2019.
We did not receive, as far as I can tell, a letter from the meeting last year, Esperanza.
Thank you for the clarification.
So did you receive a letter from Esperanza?
No, no, Counselor.
I had not.
Then I would recommend that we hold this matter for a letter because it was not previously
indicated that there was another RCO meeting, a newer RCO meeting, and presumably an additional
letter would be forthcoming. Wow. I'm surprised that Esperanza had not submitted another letter.
Excuse me, counsel. Do you have any interior pictures? Certainly. Let me share screen again.
Let me find the photographs of the interior.
Let me, I'm looking for that. One moment, please, Mr. Holloman.
There's only one occupant in the property at this point. It's the first floor tenant.
given, oh, I'm sorry, the second floor tenant, given that there's no zoning for a duplex.
Okay, I think I found the photographs. I'm going to share screen again.
And I'll show you the photos of the interior.
All right, can you see?
Well, you got to move the screen, it's in between.
Oh, the screen will be here, okay.
Either move down or up either one.
Okay, can you see this better now?
That's outside.
That's outside.
Okay, well, we're scrolling down. Here we go. This photograph here is the back of the building. This is the front entrance.
Okay, well, we're scrolling down.
Here we go.
Again, the back of the building and the back of the building. Showing the yard.
The side alley with the meters.
this is the staircase and this is the empty apartment on the first floor
thank you okay so so hillary what i'm going to do is we'll give this
we'll put this to the board the audience and then the planning commission then we'll hold the vote
all right thank you mr chairman i'll reach out to the any any questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission uh if i may just add one thing
before the planning commission when i had participated in the rco meeting of july 20th
I had not seen any opposition. I had not heard any opposition from any of the participants.
And in fact, it was very scant participation other than the persons that were members of the Esperanza board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition of this 1,087 square foot property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The majority of homes on this block are single family.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the use variance.
Thank you.
So we will continue this and do a vote once we hear from the RCO.
Thank you very much.
Right.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
All right.
MI 2022-000655.
4439 Main Street.
Justin Crick.
Yeah, Mr. Crick is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Mr. Crick, how are you?
Is it already sworn?
Could you identify the owner of this property and the relationship they have with it?
Yes. My client on the phone is Eric Kretschmann. He is the principal member of the owner LLC, as well as the principal member of the tenant LLC of this property.
Thank you. And our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all. I believe the letter was sent late yesterday afternoon, and I believe Ms. Emerson did receive a copy of that.
Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Members of the board, we're here today on an application for the property located at 4439 Main Street in Maniunk. The occupant of the property, again, even though the individual represents both the owner and the tenant, the tenant occupant operates a restaurant and bar at this location and has done so for some time.
We are seeking an application for the erection of a roof deck onto the existing structure, which would require an exterior staircase accessing the roof deck, and then for a sit-down restaurant on that roof deck, as I will show on the plans.
I did submit a plan proviso, and I will show you the differences and comparisons between the two, original proposed plan and proviso plan that was generated after discussion with the neighborhood and consultation with the parties involved.
The current refusal and referral states as follows.
We received a referral for the roof deck itself. For having a roof deck, we are subject to the special exception requirements.
The design, the staircase that leads from the ground to that roof deck generated a refusal, as is prohibited, and then there was a refusal for the non-existent setback.
The proviso plans that have been supplied have done away with the roof deck setback refusal, as we have since implemented that five-foot setback.
uh setback uh refusal as we have since uh implemented that five foot setback as will be shown
uh the property is located on main street uh basically between green lane and carson street
it is known as uh well i'll show it to you and everybody can understand it but
generally speaking from a geographical standpoint we are situated next to the united states post
office and in between two larger structures on either side of us and we are flanked by
this drive aisle that the post office maintains.
And zoning in this area is CMX 2.5.
This is the U.S. hotel bar and grill on the subject property.
As you can see, currently as it's situated, there's outdoor seating along the side and
a small deck and patio we are looking to utilize this what i would consider to be a nook in the in
the roof area of the u.s hotel in order to provide additional seating and an environment for for
patrons the staircase that you'll see in the in the upcoming plans will run alongside this facade
and originally proposed was to run from front to rear of the property but it has since been
again with neighborhood discussion re-oriented to run from the the front down to the rear of
the property such that access to the roof deck will be handled through the side entrance way
of the property and not directly off of the public right-of-way on the street
a few more pictures to give an idea of where we're going to be situated with the project
Here's access, which has been relocated and swapped out with one of the windows a little
further back to allow for the staircase to come down this wall.
And this is the existing roof where the roof deck is to be situated.
You can see that we have the siding of the neighboring building on one side, as well
as the rear facade of the building behind us.
So if anything, this would only expose the roof deck to two sides of the building, and this front facade actually provides some coverage, as well as the five-foot setback keeps everything away from the street in terms of noise and any other issues that the neighborhood had with the project.
These are front-facing and rear-facing views of the interior of the property at this time so that the board can understand what's going on inside.
Our original plans, as I indicated, the original plans of the building had a roof deck proposed for almost the entire size of the roof with mechanical equipment in the back,
no setback and egress coming from the front street frontage right of way up to this this line
we have since after working with the madame development corporation and madame neighborhood
council revised roof plans to one account for a five-yard setback removing a the refusal and
And two, reorienting this staircase to allow for better controlled access to the roof deck
through the restaurant for patrons and not directly off of the street frontage.
Here we have the proposed elevation, the proviso plan elevation.
As you can see in the previous picture, the door was here and a window is here.
These two have been swapped.
No additional refusals generated by this reorientation.
again if anything we have removed one by placing the setback as the uh as indicated by the proviso
plans it was a setback uh five foot eliminated reorienting the staircase and reorienting the
roof deck placement uh here is a copy of the lease between the ownership entity 4439 main
street associates and ush partners as i indicated mr kretschman who's on the line is the principal
of both of those entities.
We also, I included a copy of the deed as well.
And we have tax clearance, zoning posters.
And essentially, the applicant has come to an agreement
with the neighborhood for a four-party agreement
regarding certain operations
that that are not necessarily relevant to the board but to understand that we do not have any
opposition to this project we believe that the the situation with
We believe that the situation with the need for outdoor seating and expanded occupancy, it is best to do a roof deck versus expand on the physical structure of the building with additional stories to both preserve the historic nature and look and character of the property,
while also allowing for, again, better patronage during these times
where outdoor dining is desired.
As we think that in terms of the special exception,
the use of a roof deck in this property,
especially where it's flanked on two sides by buildings,
which does not create any, which alleviates any harm from patrons being at the excess
heights or anything like that, as well as preventing any impacting air and light of
adjacent properties.
We believe that the special exception standard has been met, that there will not be any
additional congestion in the area, that doing so would not overcrowd the land.
Adding these facilities would not burden any other public facilities or injure the use of any adjacent conforming properties, endanger the health or public health of anybody else, especially with not coming off of the public right-of-way, and that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan in allowing the commercial nature of this business to thrive greater.
With that said, we believe that the special exception threshold has been met. The neighborhood has not offered any objection to this, nor sought to meet its burden of proof that there would be general detrimental impacts on the neighborhood.
That leaves us with the refusal for the staircase structure that is prohibited by code. We believe that there is a hardship in the size of the nature of this building as what you've seen from the interior and the historic slash character of the building that in order to get to the roof deck from an interior staircase would cause substantial renovations to have to be made.
and it would be difficult for the property owner to conform the interior of the property in order
to obtain access to the roof. Again, without any opposition, I would like to call Mr. Kretschmann
to raise his hand to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Kretschmann, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
thank you i could you could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
uh sure mr chairman it's eric kretschman e-r-i-c last name k-r-e-t-s-c-h-m-a-n
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed thank you mr kretschman have you had an opportunity to hear my statements made
to the board today i i did uh would you agree that those statements are true and accurate to
the best of your knowledge they are and would you adopt my statements to the board as if they were
your own testimony given today i would thank you i have no questions questions from the board
no mr chair no mr chair questions from the virtual audience
i see the other is at this time chair planning commission good afternoon david fecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location the applicant has shown that a roof deck will have
no more of an impact than a roof deck would be expected to have at this location the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the special exception and the use variance thank you
MI 2022, 000655, 4439 Main Street.
I vote yes, proviso.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped May 4th, 2022.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes, proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, proviso.
James Snell, yes, proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes, we're provided though.
Okay, so we have two more cases left.
Thank you.
This afternoon, and then we have several, a handful of cases after 3.30.
Let's take a five-minute break, give our court stenographer a chance to, if she needs extra
supplies or whatever, and we'll be back in five minutes, everybody.
Okay, yes, sir.
Then we're going to go right through it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As you wish, Chair.
So this is a continuation of the 2 p.m. listing.
Number 10, MI 2021-004-044-6701-41 Callahill Street.
Peter Kelson is the listed attorney.
No exhibits.
Second listing.
Is there anyone here for this case?
Mr. Kelsen if you're in the audience
could you please raise your virtual hand
Mr. Chair
this is the case that Jared Klein
appeared earlier and asked for continuance
so that one's already been continued
yeah Jared Klein
already asked for continuance on this one
earlier yes
MI 2021
Callahill Street
must be tried
continue but must be tried
number 11
MI 2022
704 North 23rd Street
Fairmount Civic Association
will not take a position
had they have written a letter
about the history
Christopher Oleta
is the attorney
Christopher is coming back in as a panelist now chair. Thank you.
All right good afternoon sir. Hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please?
Sure. My name is Chris Ouellette, first name C-H-R-I-S, last name O-U-E-L-L-E-T-T-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Sure. So my client is Jones-Klee Enterprises LLC, represented by Anthony and Andrew Jones-Klee, who are both in attendance for this hearing.
Our Vice Chair, Carol Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, sir. The first question I'm going to ask you is, do you have any
more photos than the ones you've submitted? I currently do not.
Mr. Chair? So we, our attorney, our attorney is taking a look at the file.
we think you need to provide more photographs so we get to see what's going on in there and
the whole issue with the property is that okay yes so what we're going to do is we'll continue it
our office will be in touch with you but what we need is you know you want to change the first
floor we need photos of what everything looks like and things like that is that okay all right
okay thank you cases continue
Going to the 3.30 list. My name is Bill Berger and I will be chairing this hearing. With
me is Carol Tenere, our Vice Chair. Present. Ismail Shaheed, our Board Secretary. Present,
Mr. Chairman. Thomas Holliman, our Board Member. Present, Mr. Chairman. James Snell,
our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also present is our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkit, and our attorney, Hillary Emerson. Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised that the proceedings are being recorded. By participating in your knowledge
agreement to be recorded, the video will be available by contacting Tanya Sunkit at phil.gov.
Two, for the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify
themselves before testifying. Three, if you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call
267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question. And lastly,
please note the question answer box is not for testimony or comments. Any comments have to be
referred to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunke. Are there any requests for continuances on the
330 list? I see no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Number one, MI 2022-000-643-1836
South 28th Street. Tracy Soller is the attorney. No letter yet that we have from the
Tracy Soller is the attorney.
No letter yet that we have from the coordinating RCO.
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Cher.
Thank you.
Ms. Soller?
Hello?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Tracy Soller.
It's T-R-A-C-Y-S-A-U-L-E-R.
My address is 1019 South 8th Street, Philadelphia, 19147.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
My client is Hu Bach Lee, and he is the owner of 1836 South 28th Street, and I am his attorney.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
yes to all with with one exception i had difficulty getting the tax clearance certification for one
owner the system said missing information i did submit a request over to the city for that
clearance certificate i do have the other clearance certificate attached for the property
so i'm just waiting to get that back and if i could ask if i could submit that by monday
and we could still have the hearing today i would greatly appreciate it so we have the time we have
the tax for the property we do have one it's owned by um husband and wife i have a tax clearance for
the husband but not for the wife okay yep let's go okay how about how about the rco do you have
a letter i do yes we just got that today so you i'm not sure if you have access to it yet but i
Hillary, could you send it to our attorney?
Proceed when you're ready.
Thank you.
So we're here today to request a variance for the property located at 1836 South 28th
Street, Philadelphia. The current zoning of this property is RM1, which is zoned residential.
This is a corner property. Counsel, could you share your screen with us?
Yes, I can.
thank you you're welcome so this is the the property here
and i have a packet which includes a copy of the refusal the refusal was for use which is
personal services requested on the first floor. The client is requesting to use the first floor
as a barbershop with a single family dwelling above. We also included a copy of the refusal
which was issued. We did meet with the community members. We met with four of the local RCOs,
The Grays Ferry Community Council, ROAD, Tasker Morris Neighborhood Association, as well as Philly Thrive RCO.
And we have a letter in support from the RCOs, which, did you say you have that or should I share my screen on that letter?
What are you sharing?
Yes, it has not. This is Hillary. It hasn't come through yet. So please share your screen. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. One moment.
We met with the RCO on
We met with the RCO on two occasions.
On the last occasion was April 28th at 7 p.m.
We met with those four RCOs as well as members of the community.
And we took a poll of the community members in attendance and also the RCOs voted.
The result was that the RCOs voted to support our variance request in this matter.
this is a copy of the letter that was sent and um if you don't have that i can also email that over
at the conclusion of the hearing
i have photographs of the property which i will share
is that still sharing we don't see the photos of the property okay sorry i have to switch
that's okay
okay I have photos of the exterior as well the side of the property the rear
I have photos of the neighboring street and I have photos of the inside of the
property as it currently is set up. And I also have photos of the zoning poster
which was posted on April 18th on the side of the building as well as the
front of the building. More photos of the street. We also canvassed the neighborhood
and asked for support from the neighbors. We received 71 signatures in petition in support
of the requested variants. I have my client Hu Bak Lee on the call as well, and I'll ask him
to introduce himself, and I'm going to speak slowly when he gets on. He will raise his hand.
Can I ask one question? How about you have signs? Yes, the photos of the signs.
the signs. Yes. The signs were posted on the front door. And because it's a corner property,
the sign was also posted. No, I think it says here you want to put
two non illuminated flat wall signs up. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
the signs are like you said non-illuminated they're flat wall signs roughly three feet by
three feet on we have the height here but here's the proposal for the sign
three feet high by three feet wide and there would be two because again it's a corner property there
would be one on the front of the building here just above the window and one on the side street
thank you excuse me council can you can you go back to the side and flip it
I didn't flip it.
It's not letting me rotate it, one second.
Hi, this is Tanya, if necessary I can email it.
I don't want to do that, Tom.
Yeah, I apologize.
For some reason, it won't allow me to rotate it.
I don't know if it's because I'm sharing.
Because I'm sharing.
Okay, while we're waiting for the email to us, could you have your client adopt your testimony, please?
Who, if you could raise your hand?
nobody's hand raised at this time
okay you're an officer of the court and uh we will take your testimony in the place
um questions from the board and hopefully the signage will be around soon
questions
no questions all right questions or comments from the virtual audience
oh um we have a nancy okay
i'm sorry their hand just went down okay i'm sorry all right go ahead
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
ma'am you can unmute yourself if you wish to testify yes i will could you put that sign up
again please first of all could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes can you hear me i can thank you my name is nancy rabic n-a-n-c-y
last name capital r a b as in boy i k all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
truth nothing but the truth yes i do i could you proceed yes um i have a question to ask
this refusal was given on december the 20th 21st 2021 and at the bottom of that sheet it says that
And an appeal can be made within 30 days.
Mr. Bergman, we're well past that.
Is there...
No, but wait a minute.
I think you can appeal, but then there's a backlog of cases.
So your appeal is when you file.
And I would think this was filed within a period of time.
And then the case is listed.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya.
You're absolutely correct.
Thank you for telling me that. My next question is, there was a list of names. I'd like to know in what radius of 1836 the knocking on the doors or getting addresses were.
because i'm a retiree my neighbor joan leaney who's here with me also retiree we did not get
any any and no we didn't hear any knocks on the door and no one asks asked us for any right
signatures so so i i think so here's a better question the better question is are you in favor
of the project no i am not and neither am i okay so ma'am we have your we have your information
that you're not in favor of it.
Thank you very much for calling in.
Is there anybody else in the virtual audience
that has a comment?
No more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
She has to sign up.
What is internally illuminated?
Counsel?
that's that's actually that shouldn't be on there it's a non-illuminated i apologize for
that error um it's a flat wall sign non-projecting it's three quarters of an inch thick and it's
non-illuminated so that should be corrected um on the actual application we did put non-illuminated
wall sign and that's what the request is for so there are no lights that are going to be on the
sign thank you planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning
ron state your name and spell it please first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r
all right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do
This property is indicated for residential use on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change the existing residential zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances.
Therefore, we recommend that a request for advantage not be granted.
So, Council, we're going to wait until we get the tax information for you, and we will vote on this next Wednesday.
Okay, thank you, Cameron.
chair mr chair in terms of the tax information um if if it's the same tax clearance for husband
and wife they're both owners in the property and it's property taxes and we've already received
one clearance we don't need to receive another clearance that it should be the same all right
so if you wish to hold this for a vote you just in general to discuss you can but
we'll hold it to next wednesday we'll have a conversation about it okay okay and we'll
the letter at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Yes, I will. Thank you. MI 2021-004-594-2038
North Lambert Street. Lynn Nichols is the attorney. Counselor, thank you.
Letter of support from the 32nd Ward RCO. Lynn.
Chair, Ms. Nichols is coming back and now is a panelist.
good afternoon chair miss nichols you were already sworn just state your name
lynn nichols o-y-n-n-n-i-c-h-o-l-s could you uh could you identify your client the relationship
to the property yes yarmouth construction group they're the owners and today we have
david bullock on the call as the owner representative okay our vice chair uh has a few
questions for you. Carol? Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes. Thank you. You may proceed and
share your screen. Thank you. Thank you. Can everyone see this? Yes. Yes. Good afternoon,
Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the board. This is a project for a multifamily use
variance. These young developers have decided to do their first affordable housing project at 2038
North Lambert Street. They were able to obtain the approval of the RCO that agreed with the project
to eliminate a vacant property and beautify their neighborhood. This is an also a near neighbor has
enthusiasm for the project and I believe she's also a witness on the call. Here we have an
application for appeal, a project information form, as well as the deed for the property,
tax clearance. Here you will see a photo showing the front of the property facing 2038 North
Lambert Street. This is a side view of the property facing 2038 North Lambert Street.
Here we have a view looking to the right of 2038 North Lambert Street. This is a view looking to
the left of 2038 North Lambert Street. This is a list of the impacted neighbors that were mailed
the letter indicating when this hearing was being held here we have proof of mailing this is a copy
of the zoning notice that was posted on the property here's the notice of refusal for the
three-family dwelling use we've also included some near properties that have already been
granted variances in this area we're now showing the site plan with regard to how the property
would accommodate the three dwelling. The elevation is shown on the site plan as well
as the two bedroom, two apartments that will be in each floor.
Here is a letter of support from Michelle Bailey who is a near neighbor across the street
at 2039 North Lambert Street. We also have the letter of support from the RCL. They
asked us for a proviso for sanitation, which we have supported. They support this elimination of
blight in this area. And the proviso with the sanitation plan attached is here for your review.
Based upon the plans, we feel that the square footage suffices for this three-family affordable
dwelling. There is a demand in this area for this type of housing, affordable housing, which is the
best use of this property economically and logistically. And as I stated, we requested
And as I stated, we requested a sanitation, we submitted a sanitation plan, which was requested by the RCO.
a sanitation, we submitted a sanitation plan, which was requested.
This use of the property will not alter the character of the neighborhood, nor will it affect the nearby properties.
It will not increase the traffic or congestion or endanger the public, nor will it burden the public services or utilities.
And it will not endanger or damage the welfare of the neighborhood.
In fact, it will beautify it.
At this time, I would like to call Michelle Bailey if she's on the call.
is Ms. Bailey responding
if she's not responding Mr. Chair may I please read the letter that she submitted in
lieu of her testimony absolutely thank you to the zoning board of adjustment I'm writing this
letter stating that I am in agreement with and support the owners of 2038 North Lambert Street
for the renovations to their property for a three-family dwelling for affordable housing
I have lived here for more than 30 years, and I have no problem with the plans they have for the three-family dwelling at 2038 North Lambert Street because we need affordable housing in this neighborhood.
Thank you for your support. Signed, Michelle Bailey. 2039 North Lambert Street.
At this time, I would like to call David Bullock.
Is Mr. Bullock answering from the audience?
Mr. Bullock, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Try Dante Preston.
Is he with me?
Yes, Dante Preston.
He signed in under Dante Preston.
Thank you so much.
Okay, no problem.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Mr. Bullock, can you put your hand up again, please?
Chair, he's been unmuted.
it. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Mr. Bullock? You have to mute Dante Preston. Please hit your mute button.
Sorry. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter? David Bullock. D-A-V-I-D
B-U-L-L-O-C-K. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Thank you. Proceed. Thank you. Mr. Bullock, are you the owner representative on behalf of
Yarmouth Construction Group today with regard to 2038 North Lambert Street? Yes, I am. And do you
agree with and adopt the presentation and testimony given here today for the property
at 2038 North Lambert Street?
Yes, I do.
Do you agree that it's accurate and true?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
I have nothing further.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
This property is indicated for residential use
on the city plan no changes to the existing residential single family zoning has been
recommended at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of
unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in
conformity with the code affordability um the affordability cannot be enforced by the city
therefore we recommend that the request for advantage not be granted. Thank you. MI 2021
004-594-2038 North Lambert Street I vote yes with proviso commercial trash pickup.
Carol Tenere my vote is yes with proviso. Thomas Holliman my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell
yes for proviso thank you thank you mr chair may an excuse yes thank you good afternoon
thank you mi 2021 005 277 221 east wildly street no exhibits that we have at this point first
listing is is there anyone in the audience for this case i see no hands at this time chair
hold on just a moment uh mr robert everett just put his hand up okay mr everett you can unmute
and wait for the chair please okay i'm here all right could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter yeah first name is robert r-o-b-e-r-t last name everett e-v-e-r-e-t-t
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Is this your case, 221 East Wadley?
Is this your case, 221 East Wadley?
I'm a member of the zoning committee for the Fishtown Neighbors Association, and we met with the applicant on March the 1st, and at that time, they weren't really ready with their presentation.
I'm a...
We advised they should probably get a zoning attorney to help them, and the plans weren't, you know, enough.
enough so we haven't even had a community meeting about this yet that's fine thank you sir we
appreciate i appreciate you calling in to tell us that thank you thank you so mi 2021 005 277
221 East Wadley Street
continued
must be tried
number 4
MI 2021
2304 East Allegheny Avenue
Greg Shore is the attorney
letter of support from Harrogate
Civic Association
I see no heads at this time
Greg, please raise your hand. I see that you're in the audience.
He's being promoted to a panelist now, Sheriff.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Shore, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Mr. Shore?
I'm sorry, sir.
Sure, sure, sure.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My first name is Greg, G-R-E-G-G.
Last name is Shore, S-H-O-R-E.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property the client has?
My client's name is Iftikar Chaudhry, and he is the property owner at 2304 East Allegheny.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Shore.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet in with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy
of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing?
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, all of those. Thank you.
Thank you. You may proceed and share your screen.
By way of background, the property at 2304 East Allegheny is currently zoned residential.
The property is owned by my client, Iftikar Chaudhry.
Excuse me, we need to see your screen.
And thank you.
You got it?
No, I was just thanking you.
It's coming up now.
How about now?
We see one page.
All right, so.
Seems like the last page.
Do you have a, do you have the property on your screen now?
No, no.
Let me try and share it again.
How about now?
Okay, good.
So by way of background, the property is currently owned by my client.
He purchased the property back in September of 2020.
When the property was owned by the previous owner, Bruce Weinstein, there was a hearing
aid business operating out of the first floor of the building with a residence on the second floor
currently there's a tenant on the second floor of the property the first floor
has been renovated in the hopes of having a home health care business use the space on the first
floor on april 14th we had a meeting with the local registered community organization following
the mailing of notice letters two weeks prior to 153 individuals within the immediate area.
Yesterday we received a letter of support from the chairman of the Harrogate Civic Association,
Ryan Keller, noting support of 13 of the 14 members of the Harrogate Civic Association.
There were some, the association asked my clients to agree to the installation of security cameras,
make sure the exterior of the property is kept clean and provide sidewalk trees and additional
exterior lighting all of which are acceptable to my client notably within a two square
all of which are acceptable to my client. Notably, within a two-square-block radius of
this address, there are a number of different businesses, residences that have the same type
of situation that we're looking for with a business on the first floor and residents on
the second floor. The picture that you're staring at, the 2304 is to the left if you're looking at
the screen. To the right is obviously the neighboring property that has a business on
floor one. There are other pictures available of the interior of the business as well as the
posting if you folks would like to take a look.
Greg, are you still there?
Yeah, I'm here.
I'm here.
So do you have anything else you want to show us besides the picture?
No, I think, I mean, unless there's specific questions, you know, I do have other pictures
if there's specific questions, but nothing as of now.
Would you want to have your client adopt your testimony?
I believe he's in the audience. His name is Iftikhar Chaudhry. Mr. Chaudhry.
Mr. Chaudhry, could you raise your hand, please?
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
I'm sorry. This is Tanya. May I just ask the question, sir? Do you know if he was calling in?
Yeah, he called in.
He called in.
We have a number.
We'll unmute that individual.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The phone number ending in 8320 has been unmuted.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
I-S-T-I-K-H-A-R, Latin C-H-A-U-D as in David, H-R-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes they do proceed mr shaw thank you mr chaudry if you had a chance to listen to my statement of
relevant facts and do you believe them to be true and accurate yes i do and are you able to adopt
those facts as your own yeah okay thank you sir questions from the board no mr chairman no mr
chairman no mr chairman question or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair hi planning commission uh ron bednarcy planning while this
property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical condition
of the property and its documented use history we recommend the request for the answer be granted
Thank you. MI 2021-003-084-2304 Allegheny Avenue, I vote yes.
Harold Teneri, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, sir.
MI 2021
North Front Street
Sean Ward
He's coming back in as a
panelist now
Mr. Ward, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just get my video started.
Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N, last name W-A-R-D,
attorney for the property owner and applicant who are one and the same.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions, Mr. Ward.
I'm sure she does.
Hi, Mr. Ward.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
see yes i do madam vice chair have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and or
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco
and do you have a letter yes to all the above that's fantastic
and do you have a letter yes to all the above that's fantastic you may proceed
and please share your screen immediately
all right can we confirm my screen is shared yes it is larger thank you very much uh mr chairman
members of the board uh as usual i've attached my customary exhibit packet which was submitted to
the board five days in advance. I represent A-A-G-N-A Realty LLC, owner of the property as well
as Pankey Patel doing business as Pramuk Financial, that's P-R-A-M-U-K-H Financial Inc. for the
properties known as 2742 through 46 North Front Street. Attached at A-1 is the Notice of Refusal.
It is a permit to add check cashing to an existing pawn shop and retail sale of consumer goods, specializing in musical equipment, jewelry, etc.
We resulted in one refusal, which was questionable at best, but we'd like to confirm it with a variance.
A personal credit establishment is not permitted in the district, when in fact it's an existing pawn shop, which is considered a personal credit establishment.
In any event, we seek to confirm the additional use as a use variance.
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal.
A3, project information form.
A4, proof of ownership.
A5 is proof of tax clearance.
The tax clearance attached to the packet did not show clear for 2020.
However, my client did pay online.
I emailed this to Hillary. It's a copy of the online billing receipt. Thank you for your payment.
And I got to move something here. Hold on a second. As you'll see at the bottom of the screen,
the taxes for 2022, an amount of $787.12 were paid on April 29th. Going back to the packet.
A6 is a site map. A7 are photographs of the property. A8 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing. A9 is the RCO letter from HACE. A10 is a petition of support with pages of signatures from nearby neighbors and customers of this facility.
uh a11 is uh if submitted uh of course you know we don't always get copies but that would be the
district council person's letter a12 uh relevant zoning history from 1978 to present this has been
used as a a pawn shop so to a variance granted by the board uh way back when uh a13 is proof of
licensing uh precious metal dealer pawn shop and scales and scanners a14 is the zoning map a15 is
the aerial photograph. So not to belabor, but they're in the refusal dated 11-23 of 2021
for the subject property 27th. We saw the use of a check cashing, which is considered personal
credit establishment with other previously approved uses, whereas this use is prohibited
in the CMX2. So we also have the application of appeal, the project information form,
my transmittal letter to the board asking for an answer and hearing, copy of the deed. As you can
see, one deed encompasses 42, 44, and 46 on the 27-hour block of North Front Street.
as stated previously the original packet had indicated that the 2022 taxes remained unpaid
but they were paid last week this is a site map from google indicating the location of the property
it's on north front street at the terminus of east seltzer street s-e-l-t-z-e-r between somerset
and uh the other street i'll call it okay uh here is a uh a google angle view of the property it
encompasses the three tan buildings together uh 2742 44 and in 46 another google street view
of the property as you can see the three tan uh facade structures uh combined as one for the use
as a pawn shop. Another photo. Photographs of the interior, as you can see.
another photo photographs of the interior as you can see they do specialize in musical
equipment as you can see a lot of bongo drums hanging on the wall
this would be the check caching window on the other side would be the customer area
this is from the customer area looking in
and again another photo of the interior of the shop we did send out our rco meeting notice
on February 28th, indicating that the hearing would be held today at 3.30, before the property
at 2.742, and the RCO hearing meeting was held on March 9th at 5.30 p.m. via Zoom.
It included a copy of the refusal and one, two, three, four pages of addresses.
that was 166 addresses for this property and they were mailed out on March 1st as you can see by the
postal stamp. With regard to the letter from the RCO it does reference 2742 final position taken
was of support seven in support one opposed one abstaining. They do indicate that based upon
public discussion uh the zoning committee voted to uh you know vote uh seven votes to support
one in opposition and they submit this letter in support of the proposed variance
again i mentioned that we had multiple pages of a petition of support as you can see they're all
Numerous, numerous in content and therefore we submit that additional indication of support
and that petition was provided to Hase RCA RCO and then of course attached is the supporting
documentation for the continuous operation as a pawn shop over the years copies of their license
is etc etc it is zoned cmx2 commercial uh the the purple outlined one hang on a second
uh the uh purple one is 27 42 uh above that would be uh 44 and then above that would be 46.
and then of course i always conclude with a picture of an aerial photo from google indicating
the location. So going back, the bottom street is Lehigh, so it's between Lehigh and Somerset.
Based upon that, the board grant the variance requested to add one additional service to an
existing personal credit establishment based upon the support of the community, the neighbors,
and existing customer base. If the board needs, Mr. Patel is on the call.
he can either verify and adopt or as an officer of the court i'd be happy to indicate that based
upon my discussion with him he'd be willing to do so and in the interest of brevity i would
ask for board acknowledgement that he verifies and adopts that's fine you you you're an officer
the court will take that questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the
virtual audience or comments i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
property is indicated this is ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for commercial
on the city plan given the physical conditions of the site we recommend the quest for vantage
to be granted. Thank you. MI 2021-003-084-2304 East Allegheny Avenue. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my business. May I be
excused. You can. Thank you very much. MI 2021-005-274-555-Vankirk Street. Octavia Brown,
owner, pro se. Letter of non-opposition from the coordinating RCO Longcrest community.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I need to recuse myself from this matter. Drew Aldinger will be
filling in if he can be promoted to panelists thank you thank you
octavia brown she's coming back it is a panelist now chair mr all diggers also
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
And Mr. Aldinger is also coming in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm sorry.
It was just taking a little while to connect.
I'm just turning my camera on.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court report?
Hello, everyone.
My name is Octavia Brown, O-C-T-A-V-I-A, and Brown, B-R-O-W-N.
Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Ms. Brown.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property,
five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, I've done everything. I have a letter. I received an email earlier today saying that I
accidentally forwarded you guys the long copy, I'm sorry, of the mortgage document that I thought
was the deed. I did at least send the deed, and I hope you have that, but if you need anything,
I have everything here that I can kind of pull up as well.
I think we're good. You may proceed. Please share your screen.
Okay, thank you.
Please give me one second to kind of navigate.
And I just wanted to be clear in regards to sharing my screen,
you guys just want to see the documents again that were sent in?
Okay, thank you.
I'm going to do that right now.
And I apologize.
I don't have, like, the PDF document that it looks like the lawyer's head.
But I do have everything that I can pull up one by one.
Is that okay?
And you guys can see that right now?
You can see your screen.
You should start sharing.
Thank you.
So I will have to get back in because this deed here is not the right one.
this is the original one and i'll get that right after i pull up everything else okay so the first
document that i'm pulling up i'm sorry this is tanya miss brown it looks like it's spinning
on our end does everyone see it's spinning it's spinning miss brown how about if you turn off
your video and then try to start and see if that helps with the um the sharing
um you're going in and out i think it's tech um technical
it might be low bandwidth how about if you um did you um take down your video
turn your video off
I think now she's frozen.
There she is.
Yeah, I think I froze.
I'm sorry.
I'm freezing over and over again.
So do me a favor and turn your put a line through your video.
Just hit the camera.
And that way it won't affect your sharing.
Hopefully.
And I'm sorry, I didn't hear a thing you guys just said.
Can you guys please say that again?
Can you turn off your video?
Oh, sure.
Okay, so I stopped my video.
Now try sharing again and see if it works.
Okay, thank you.
I think that's better.
All right.
Are you guys able to see everything else?
So we see your file.
So you can open it.
excuse me can you hear us octavia
yes i think i may need to join from my phone if that's all right instead of my computer
um we do see your file can you click on your files can you open it before you share
yes um i do have a file open is it is it not showing i'm sorry no so this is what you need
to do you need to unshare if i'm correct and bill can help me bill
yes stop sharing yes and then then open the file then select the file
so hit the green button at the bottom to unshare
yeah i'm trying it's my computer it's just not okay it's not letting me uh get back there for
some strange reason i'm chair it's your call um but if you want her to talk through it and then
And the staff can try to pull up the exhibit so we can send to you.
Why don't we do that?
While she's here, why don't you see if the staff can pull it up?
That would be fine with me.
Thank you kindly.
Staff, please submit that to me if you can.
And Ms. Brown, may you please just speak to your exhibit as you see them so that we can
continue in the efforts of time.
Give me one second.
it's not the zoom um i'm trying to get it back on the screen and it's not for some reason
if you will so if you will just speak to your project and we'll get the board the information
okay so what do you want to do yeah tell us what you want to do just
Okay, the problem was my screen, it wasn't showing the actual Zoom call, so I was just trying to get back to be able to see you all.
Okay, my name is Octavia Brown.
What I'm trying to do at 555 Van Kirk Street is basically convert it into a daycare center with group, so basically a group daycare center.
I have presented in front of the zoning board the team here as far as like the neighborhood
meeting. I've canvassed the neighborhood. I've walked house to house and you know I've gotten
a lot of signatures. I was trying to show that today. I have copies of that on my computer right
now and I was going to share that with you all today but I can also email that as soon as possible
And I've gotten three pages of signatures that are around about 75, 76 signatures.
I've also have gotten a support.
There is actually a daycare across the street that's also zoned this group.
It's called Tiny Tots.
She also is very supportive, you know, of what I'm trying to do here.
So what I was approved of or what I was agreed upon within the meeting that I had
was to allow me to have to service five children within my daycare um because there's a lot a lack
of outdoor space at the time so I will be currently utilizing the indoor space that I have
um as a play space um and I've also I've already called like um the child care you know rec center
here in Philadelphia so just to get insight to make sure I'm moving in the right direction
they said in regards to you know utilizing the indoor space I would have to apply for a variance
and it should be a very simple procedure you know as long as I go through this zoning process first
I just want to help kids I just want to help kids I want to help the community
I love kids I've worked with children and families all my life I started out doing social work and
I've worked in that type of field I moved on to doing like mental health work and a family
in individual therapy. So I have that background. I have a master's in clinical counseling, a
bachelor's in psychology, and I've always, always worked with youth and families. And I just want
to, you know, my dream is to start at the source. And I think the source starts at preschool.
So that's basically what I want to do here. So explain this to me. Is it a three-story building?
Yes, it is a three-story building. Two stories above you are apartments?
Two stories above me is our apartments and this is the first where you want to put your daycare.
Well, it's the basement level. So, yes, the first story, which is also the basement level,
is where I want to put the daycare. So, it's a two-story building.
Yes. And the basement is above ground with two exits.
Ton, do we have any pictures that she sent at all?
Chair I just sent the exhibit package to you all okay and yeah perfect
yeah and we have also received the that's not included with that just so you know
So at this point, there's a max of five kids if you're allowed?
so at this point there's a max of five
Octavia?
Yes, that was the five children.
Yes, that was the five children.
Yes, yes.
They support me having an indoor play space.
So tell me about like Long Crest wants you to do something with the fence.
The fence is down.
I'm not sure if you guys received it.
The expense came down the Saturday after the meeting.
Took it right down.
All right.
Where do the kids go for recreation?
Do I have anything to help you?
Hear me?
I will have the indoor play space.
But, of course, I also have a plan to, you know, do local activities within the community, local parks and things like that, as well as do trips.
I'm very excited.
Thank you.
okay so questions from the board no mr chairman and mr chairman no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience chair we have kyesha tyson miss tyson you can
mute yourself and wait for the chair
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter hi my name is kiyasha tyson
is spelled k-y-a-s-h-a last name is t-y-s-o-n i'm the director of economic and community
development for councilwoman sherelle parker right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed uh thank you i just wanted to let you
know that on behalf of the councilman's office we are not opposed to this request contingent
on her acceptance of the provisos outlined by the law and cross community association
thank you thank you thank you for calling in any other comments
i see the other heads at this time chair planning commission
ron bednar city planning this property is currently indicated for residential use on the
city plan the proposal will have no more of an impact than would be expected from a similar
use therefore we recommended the board grant the special thank you thank you mi 2021 005 274 555
van kirk street i vote yes harold tenary my vote is yes thomas holland my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you good luck with that good luck you're
so happy. Number seven, MI 2021-005-281-7054 Rutland Street. We do not have any exhibits
in our packets here, and it's the first listing. Anyone in the audience here for that case?
I see no hands at this time, Chair. So MI 2021-005-281-7054 Rutland Street,
is continued mark must be tried is there anyone else in the audience
whose case has not been called on the 3 30 list
i see no hands at this time chair okay thank you everyone thank you
everyone. Have a good night, Mr. Chairman.
Good night.
Bye, everybody. Thank you.
Good night. Have a great night, everyone.
Yvette, thank you so much for persevering.
I know you sick, but we appreciate you.